Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2015.

Template:Info box[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneded redirect. No WP:CONSENSUS, not in user-facing space, WP:RFD#D2 confusion, WP:RFD#D8 recently created. Now we shall have two where we had one. Which helps nobody. William of Ockham was on the right tack. In user-facing space, sure, every opportunity to find what they are looking for. In template space, that is editor-space, if they cannot find what they are looking for, they should stop looking and start editng real articles. Si Trew (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm able to understand neither this deletion rationale, nor the two rambling messages left on my talk page. In any case, keep as a plausible misspelling, which I have seen people make in training sessions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I would guess that your training sessions would fail WP:RS (since you have given no reliable, secondary sources: Wikiepdia by definition though rambles around the houses to say so, is in itself not a reliable source, it quotes reliable sources) and I doubt those training sessions are WP:N. So patently they would fail as being articles. So, they are not relevant. Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very plausible misspelling and I don't think either of the deletion rationales given make sense. ansh666 00:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly simple. Sorry to ramble, bad habit of mine. In user-facing space, i.e. things that you're likely to get to when you type something in a search box, DAB pages, redirects and so on are GOOD THINGS. In editor-facing space, i.e. things that editors do to oil the works and make that happen, redirects are BAD THINGS, because then they have to maintain two things instead of one. Unnecessary, recently created, WP:RFD#D8. That is a bit out of order because it starts (without "rambling" in full "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", and this is not an article. However, WP:RFD as I understand it is intended to cover most namespaces, but specifically excludes others. Thanks for what I regard as a personal attack, by the way covered by not mentioning names: I don't take offense, but that is a bit out of order: argue the case not the person. But my apologies, I do tend to pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know whose the deletion rationales were but I didn't say so and I can't see another. I proposed it for discussion. But, I will stick me oar out and say delete. I don't know why those two words are so confusing to people. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your edification and delectation, these are my rambling comments, copy pasted from User:Pigsonthewing's talk page (whencefrom I got no reply):
I am listing at WP:RFD as I am unhappy this was done with no WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately my Internet just dropped in the middle of my edit to say why, so if I am more incoherent than normal, please excuse me. (Usually on a scale of one to ten I should say my incoherence was five, but at the mo it might be seven. I've got the Interweb back but if things seem even less sense than usual, let me apologise. The thrust of it is I don't see the need for multiplying redirects with spaces in editor space not user space, and the distinction I give there is not a question of technically what namespace it is but which hat you have on. These are in editor space and if they can't find an underscore they shouldn't edit.) Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I might sign up as a technical coordinator, dunno, I am good at that. In real life I am a software engineer. I can manage people, and do it well, but it's not what I want to do in my spare time. It could suit me cos I am a great right hand man. Never wanted to be the boss, but always good right hand man. Not a lickspittle, the boss needs someone to trust and get things done, and to say no you are wrong and I can tell you why. Because I am very thorough and can tie lots of ends together, I would be good at that. Not quite ready to sign up but you may persuade me. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That was all. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viable search term/alternate naming method. Just because it isn't reader content doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reachable. CONSENSUS is not required to create a page on Wikipedia, indeed, most pages on Wikipedia were not drafts that were voted on in a discussion that reached consensus to be created. Very few pages have been created in such a manner. WP:BOLD is directly against such a method for page creation. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but I still think we need to make a distinction between user-facing pages, where a redirect or five are useful, and the boys in the backroom, which should be unseen. This "leaks" in that we now have an entirely WP:RFD#D8 novel redirect that has a space in it. I hate to bring this in, but consensus seems to go the other way: {{Infobox settlement}} is the classic example where another editor often changed more-specific templates and ran a bot to change anything that varied from that template to fit its form. Which is a bit like trying to screw a twelve-and-a half millimetre bolt into a half inch nut. I claim it is not just useless, which would be OK, but harmful, from the point of view of software maintenance. You then have two things to track where you could have had just one. Nip it in the bud. What do you expect to find if you search for it with the space or without? I shall tell you cos I have done so: Same result. Redundant, unnecessary, and harmful.
Considering that we have e.g. {{Infobox settlement}}, your line of reasoning permits {{Info box settlement}} (and {{Infobox politician}} to {{Info box politician}}, and {{Infobox writer}} to {{Info box writer}} and so on ad nauseam in not so much a combinatorial explosion but at least a linear one. A line must be drawn somewhere. Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you {{Info box boxer}} to {{Infobox boxer}} might be a bit of an undercut. Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whaddya mean "no consensus"? The Pigs and I are in agreement - that is consensus. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus of two. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spaced variations of template names have consensus in general - they're useful and frankly often better. Besides, you can't have "no consensus" on something that hasn't really been discussed before. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You don't need consensus to make redirects. We operate on a guideline called WP:BOLD. There is nothing confusing about this: "infobox" is a compound word and the redirect breaks it up into its two constituent words with a space. WP:RFD#D8 doesn't have anything to do with "recently created"—it deals with redirects that are "novel or very obscure synonyms," which this is not. Tavix | Talk  13:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I disagree. Otherwise we can have {{Info box office holder}} instead of {{Infobox officeholder}}, which has about fortyredirects to it all already listed at its documentation, and then that is a combinatorial explosion. What we end up with is useless, generic templates instead of useful, specific ones. I do realise I am in a minority, here. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
let alone that {{Info box office}} might be some info about box office takings... There is a reason that neither {{Info box car}} nor {{Infobox car}} redirect to {{Infobox automobile}}... they could be specific to a boxcar (to which box car redirects): but neither are. Do you not see how this could lead to confusion? Am I the only one? Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about those things. We're discussing {{infobox}}, and there is nothing wrong with having the space in this one. Tavix | Talk  14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am talking about the things. I can see quite clearly that I did, just there. I thought to take a specific example and amplify it to be more general was part of what we should ty to do. Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) and I argue that there is, from a maintenance perspective. You now have a template, and a redirect to it, and anyone can turn a redirect to an article. I could, if I was particularly nasty, and make an infobox about boxes. I realise that is premature to do so, maybe, but past experience with trying to fit a quart into a pint pot with e.g. {{Infobox officeholder}} (and we have, you see, {{Infobox office holder}} as a redirect to it, but not {{Info box office holder}}, breaking the symmetry as it currently stands) is because noun fusion is not a Wikipedia thing, it is a language thing: Fusional language gives examples, as does Fusion (phonetics), but unfortunately for me concentrates more on the spoken rather than the written word. But either right or I'm a tea pot → teapot. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone could just as easily turn a redlink into an article. ansh666 20:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And since {{info}} exists, this is, to my mind, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. For if not, if punctuation don't matter, then editing to type {{info|box cutter}} is as easy as writing {{info box|cutter}}, the very thing I am trying to prevent. Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this comes down to WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful) versus WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (confusing redirect). The first one is easy, obviously someone finds it useful because someone created it. I am unconvinced about it being confusing, though. Template:Notice (to which {{info}} redirects) is a template to create a notice box on a talk page, which is not a usage which can be confused with an infobox except maybe by the extremely lazy or incompetent. Si, whose heart is in the right place and does indeed have a tendency to ramble, has given us a series of possibly confusing usages all of which would be solved by proper use of the preview button. Ivanvector (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Entirely plausible misspelling and therefore not confusing at all and as mentioned very useful. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lost Angeles, California[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's an unused and pretty illogical misspelling of the word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2015

Stats show it is used, not much, but sometimes 5 or 6 hits a day, never below one a day, so well above bot noise threshhold. Í got my stats from stats.grok.se. Si Trew (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a plausible enough search term, for someone who's heard the city's name pronounced but not seen it written. Near homophones + obvious English reason to guess it is going to result in searches. WilyD 05:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viable typo / auto-correct error when using a mobile device to access Wikipedia -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To be honest I missed that it is "Lost" not "Los", but yes, not everyone would necessarily know that it was the Spanish male definite article. It goes to the same target as Los Angeles, California which is the main thing (it would be a WP:SURPRISE if it didn't). I'm not sure if it should be marked {{R from city and state}} and put in Category:Redirects from more specific geographic names, as that one is, being incorrect? I was trying to find things like Lost Alamos (or Lost Alamo) or other famous "Los"ses, but we don't seem to have others that I can find... Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I take into account what has been said above although as S and T are far enough apart on the QWERTY keyboard I question the typo claim as valid. However the auto correct point in English does make some sense. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dialetic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote. I know this is not the realm of RfD and I should be WP:BOLD, but another has put me off my stride a bit for both being too blunt and being too jokey.

We have Dialetic, an intellectual argument, and Dielectric, the insulator between the chargy stuff of a capacitor (I got it right, for a change, but even I had to think). Neither does, but I think we should WP:HATNOTE the two, they are close enough. Easy fix, hatnote the two together, but not fair of me to do it boldly when I have mentioned the first one below in another discussion. Quite happy if we decide to hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm my listing is a bit iffy Twinkle gaven me the chance to XfD to R (I weren't expecting that: it is not an R). But I think within our wider remit of sorting these kinds of things out, I'd prefer your (plural, y'all, yous) opinions to have consensus hoi polloi. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, it is an R: Missing the first letter C in the redirect to both possible targets. It does sit in the middle between "Dialectric" and "Dialetic", and is an R. Hatnote is best I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dialectric → Dielectric. I was taught with the "Dia" not "Die" spelling, emphasising the "two" not the "electric". Both are valid, I'm sure, so I still maintain hatnote would be good. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wary of the hatnote, I have yet to see one for an ambiguous misspelling, and it would open the door to weirdness and messiness. I think it may be better to delete this redirect, and let someone who types this see search results. Ivanvector (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that Dialetic has a separate meaning to it's target it makes no sense to maintain this redirect as a misspelling as it would create confusion. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2017 AFC Champions League[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The targeted article doesn't mention anything about the 2017 AFC Champions League. Therefore, this should be redlinked to show that nothing specific about this exists. Tavix | Talk  15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - '2017 AFC Champions League ' brings up no meaningful Ghits and does not merit being a redirect. GiantSnowman 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies this far ahead. The furthest ahead to be reasonable would be 2016. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many national league tables have linked qualification to the 2017 AFC Champions League. That is why a redirect was created.--2nyte (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how pray tell can they link when they haven't even started their own season yet? Unless you can source this specifically for 2017. Dragonfire X (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL: We do have AFC (disambiguation)#Sports , but none as far as I can tell run this far out in the future, for example Australian Fighting Championship enumerates until March 2015 (things that have actually taken place). Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and that there is no information about tournament. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Upcoming Inna Album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up upcoming or up-and-coming in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Delete as confusing. The target mentions nothing about an upcoming album... Tavix | Talk  14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikt added here to the RfD. I think truly a case of WP:ENGVAR,slthough "upcoming" means more "soon" and "up-and-coming" "rising", neither are marked Br. Eng. or Am. Eng. in wikt, but surely we don't want thousands of "up-and-coming" redirects. Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too general and a definite confusion threat. If an upcoming album is known it can just be added to the target article and there is no need for anything else. Once a name is given for it that can be redirected to the target instead. Far more plausible. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Random Number God[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus between deletion and retargeting, default to delete. Deryck C. 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to make sense. Possibly better off retargeted to Random number generator but is barely mentioned there (in #In popular culture). ansh666 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I on the other hand disagree, as the Random number generator is simply a software; whereas the Random number god[rng 1] is one who is, in sci-fi/ movie culture, a god like any other who has the power to bestow upon people the power of the number. To prove this theory [rng 2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirugaki (talk • contribs)
Retarget to the DAB page at RNG, where it lists RNG (algebra) as the second favourite, random number generator being the first. One cannot prove a theory, one can only negate it. If you want to think of it as a theorem, see theorem. Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It don't actually, it lists Rng (algebra). I think an [[tlx|R from alternative capitalization}} is in order here, when we close this (whichever we decide). I should be BOLD, but don't like to do so when things are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical analysis uses it regularly as in-house jargon, and nothing wrong with that. When used mathematically it means so as not to be a pseudo-random number generator but something that is "genuinely" random, i.e. beyond analyisis by cryptanalysis and the usual statistical methods, for which the gold standard is that anything that is in an a communication channel imperceptible from white noise can be considered truly random. (But I guess you all knew this.)

The universe as such is a bit random,as far as quantum mechanics leads us to believe,or on a slightly larger scale, my wife.Sorry no jokes allowed, was told off on my talk page for that, as being a WP:NEWBIE Declaration of interest: I just re-read Simon Singh's The Code Book over the last day or so on trains etc, but the future, posited in the final chapter, is that quantum mechanics may take over the "God" bit of it, since as far as is known (not as if I am an expert or anything, just what I have read) quanta are truly random at least to expert physicists: in short, the uncertainty principle. But then, it was Albert Einstein who said (I am not sure in what language, but what I learned, "I cannot be led to believe but that God does not play dice)"". Is that relevant? Is it mentioned in any? I have not checked yet, I am just going from memory. Just trying to tie them all together. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edited mine above to tie it better together, nothing more to say. As if anyone but me checks the history, so saying it here to save you the bother. Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I augmented the ref but did not change its target. It was a rawlink. Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a bit of a dialetic that e.g. Richard Dawkins' theories on evolution such as The God Delusion is where he first "came out" saying that there is no God, before that he hedged his bets a bit saying we jus call "God" anything we don't understand (I of course put it far less intelligently than he does; Arthur C. Clarke said that "Anything that is beyond the reach of current technology is intistinguishable from magic", or something like that) and this one can run and run, I think, but what do we do with it now? What are people likely to be looking for? That is the only question we have to answer, not ponder on existential criteria.I even got the conjugation right, there
Simon, what purpose would be served by retargeting to the dab page? "Random number god" is not mentioned there, and if it was added it would likely be a link to the section in Random number generator anyways. It's completely unrelated to the algebra page. ansh666 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a computer science perspective, the most fitting redirect for "Random number god" would be Random oracle, not Random number generator. // Yonatan (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is more of a pop-culture thing (my preferred term is RNGesus, which is a redlink afaik). ansh666 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RNGesus is red. Why, the quickest way to explain it is to do it, as Alice says. Phonetically, that is Orange Jesus. Si Trew (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall also refer you to
  • Knuth, Donald E. "How random is random?". The Art of Computer Programming. Vol. 2. Seminumerical algorithms (1st ed.). On my bookshelf: Permanently on loan from the factory Library.
(No longer, thanks to AGF on all sides) suspected sockpuppet User:Tautologist
I shall ask explicitly: Are you and User:Ynaamad by any chance related as WP:SOCKPUPPETs? I don't think you are, but it would be helpful just to rule it out that you're not. I have left a message at Ynaamad's user page, welcoming him to Wikipedia: My slight suspicion is that his redirect of Einstein was on 10 June 2015r, the same day this was listed. I am sure there is an innocent explanation, but I am sure you can see it could look like that. If you say no, we're not, I will absolutely take that on face value, (I am not an admin) but I am sure you see where it starts to look dodgy and in all our interests to make the encylopaedia better I should like to rule that out. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the plot thins. The User Talk:Ynaamad page has been deleted (I am not an admin but I guess WP:G7) and the page is marked as WP:SOCKPUPPET for User:Tautologist, who is banned for using multiple accounts. I suggest, with exteme prejudice, that any comments by either should be ignored. I am not sure about User:Ansh666 and hope can confirm is a real user. (Sorry Ansh to put this on you: But in the last few days it has been bot requests to which you have not responded, according to your history, but before that you have put in a lot, and everyone is entitled to a WP:WIKIBREAK, I did.) Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and now it's back. SOCKKPUPPET either that or (a) I can't copy-paste correctly or (b) I can't type "Ynaamad" correctly. (I speak six or seven languages badly, and have Hungarian, English, US English, Belgian keyboards some of which even work). Either I am severlesy mistaken or why would it have linked me to User:Tautologist? Not a name I had heard before. I just get on with gnoming. ÍBut both very quick to reply to me and very slow to respond to my requests. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something's going on here since Einstein has been stable since 2012. What I said above was correct at the time of writing. I double checked. Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the same Ynaamad. It appears as that and I copy-pasted it, but I think it pipes somewhere else. I leave it at that. Sorry to cast aspersions, but I think it is in everyone's best interests to tidy this up. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're seeing - User:Ynaamad hasn't edited Einstein or Random Number God. I'm certainly not him, a cursory contribs check should show that. ansh666 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming it. It's possible that I typed "Ynaamad" wrong and got a different user and didn't notice (I'm English living in Hungary) but hit the reply button and the talk was red. If Ynaamad is being impersonated, I am sure it is in his or her interests to know about it. I am sure I'm confused.
This is the only account I've used for a number of years, and I was unaware of this debate prior to my update of the redirect. I still stand by my decision to redirect "God does not play dice" to its only eponymous section on Wikipedia, which in turn describes the origin of the quote. // Yonatan (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cracking, thanks Ynaamad. I was pretty sure it was a false alarm, and thank you both for taking it in good grace and saying so. The things that set the alarm bells rining was the history of "God does not play dice", which you retargeted in good faith just before (well a night and day before), completely coincidentally, a related redirect was listed here. I'm sorry to cast aspersions and really happy that was all sorted out in good faith. I don't know where my welcome comment went then since it was certainly not to either of you! I reiterate, I am not an admin, and do not want to be, but I assume good faith in other editors. And it is a true pleasure that you did in me. Thank you. We can close this now, I think, but I leave it here for the record, if that's OK with you? I'm not happy with that retarget, and will list it here, since the two previous edits were by the sockpuppet User:Tautologist back in 2008]], which is where I went off on false scent. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, or perhaps a section created at Luck. It seems the concept is notable enough for this treatment. But we don't mention it anywhere, so the redirect is nonsense. Ivanvector (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Random Number God". tvtropes.org. Retrieved 11 June 2015.[unreliable source?]
  2. ^ "Random Number God". tvtropes.org. Retrieved 11 June 2015.
  • Delete Ivan is right about article creation as it seems on the face of it to be a notable cultural reference judging by the other comments here. Taking out the face value I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking around, it would be hard to create a WP:RS article for this one, and I bet all Lombard-street to a China orange that I know a bit more about Odds than you. But our gambling articles are a right mess, as I said here not too long ago.) Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Random number generator. This isn't too complicated—it's just a superstition of roleplayers to call an RNG (or a pseudo-RNG, like dice), the "Random Number God", take actions to "please" the god, or "blame" the god for bad luck. It's mentioned on that article, couldn't stand alone as one, and that's all as it should be. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Random number generator per BDD. Since it's discussed there, it would be a perfectly valid target. Tavix| Talk  16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_11&oldid=1138580299"