Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2015.

C Intermediate Language[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 retarget to George Necula#C Intermediate Language. I wouldn't advise restoring the article unless the new article has substantially more content than its previous version, because otherwise it's likely to end up in AfD again. Deryck C. 11:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was merged into C (programming language last year. As was feared in that discussion all references to CIL have been removed (and I just removed a new addition). The merge was inappropriate, as CIL is not really a proper subject for the C article. CIL is approximately a simplified form of C used in tools used to analyze and process C programs - it has little relevance to the language itself. Just as say a discussion of Strength reduction, and important technique used by most C compilers, is not relevant to the C article. The redirect should be removed. CIL, as a separate article, is not unreasonable, so perhaps we should just revert to the 17-May-2013 version (although that is pretty stubby). It would not be unreasonable to link to CIL as a related language from the C page, although I'm not sure it's sufficiently notable to justify that. Rwessel (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle to add this RfD, and it has broken the automatic redirect. I'm not sure if that's by design or something that should be fixed. There is still a link to C (programming language) there. Rwessel (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Apparently correct as is. Rwessel (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would not reverting to the last pre-merge/redirect version satisfy the requirement to keep history? Again, my primary issue is that this is *not* an appropriate redirect to the C article. Rwessel (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore pre-merge version. Yes, that would seem a sensible thing to do, if the content that was merged has been deleted from the C article. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: CIL should be restored into a separate article, no matter how "stubby" it might be. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was merged as a result of AfD, so I hesitate to just restore it and walk away. Can anyone improve upon the article as it stood pre-AfD? --BDD (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's an interesting project, I don't think CIL has ever seen major use. The project itself appears fairly unhealthy - the last update being two years ago, and the only thing new-ish are a few bug reports and feature request that have not been acted on. There appears to have been *some* use, and a fair number of cites of the original academic paper describing it, so we might have (at least borderline) notability (note that this is weaker than my initial assessment, I've now spent some time looking for supporting materials), but this is pretty esoteric. I don't know enough to do any major work on this article, and I've not found much supporting material. I'm not sure that the links that *are* there actual do establish notability. I've also noticed that there is still an external link in C (programming language to the original CIL paper (my original comment was that *all* CIL references had been removed), although that link should clearly be removed. The fact that this is all the result of an (incorrect, IMO) AfD/Merge is why I opened this discussion (this seemed the most appropriate place), I really am hesitant to do anything without some discussion. Rwessel (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the suggestion in the original AfD that this be redirected to George Necula, as an academic language, makes some sense. In fact, essentially all of the content of the original article is already there (unlike the C article, where it's all been removed). Maybe the best and simplest thing is just to move the redirect there. Rwessel (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, that seems like the best solution. Edit history will be preserved, and it's likely important enough of a topic for Necula that it will always be mentioned on his article. The same obviously can't be said about the current target. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, User:BDD and User:Rwessel, are you either or both suggesting that this is a language used in education but not in industry? Kinda a toy language that is not used outside of education? (Certainly I have never heard of it, and I have K&R propping the wonky leg on my chaise longue). Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure where to place it, there are some tools that use it. It's not a language in the most conventional sense that people use it to write programs, rather it's a more convenient representation of a C program, that's easier for tools working on those C programs to use (see, for example, Frama-C). It certainly appears to have originated in Necula's academic work . Rwessel (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed User:BDD's last comment before the relist. Yes, I can probably do better to make it RS and so on, but it will take me a bit. I'm happy to create a Draft:CIL if you want, for everyone's consideration. As it stood, it was rather poor. It is kinda a virtual machine (not really but er virtually as an abstraction) and also an intermediate language that could be compared, say, to the Java virtual machine as the platform, or bytecode as the output. Not that they are the same, but to use them each as a reference point (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to George Necula. Page history is preserved, readers searching for the term get relevant information. Editors can use that history to merge elsewhere, retry an article, etc. Everyone wins. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 12 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.

Football (A)[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. There's rough consensus to delete, and it certainly seems to be an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to Association football, American football, or Australian football. Due to its vagueness, I don't think it is helpful as a redirect to any of these sports. Also, I don't think it is a plausible search term so it's not worth a retarget to Football (disambiguation). Tavix | Talk  15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proof of the pudding would be had we Football (B) or Football (C) or Football (P) or Football (Y). We don't. So WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Q.E.D. as its first listing here. Si Trew (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikiquote:

Someone said 'football is more important than life and death to you' and I said 'Listen, it's more important than that'.

— Bill Shankly
(I have it in slightly different words in my Oxford concise dictionary of quotations and my Collins quotations). Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 5 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.

Snootch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 14#Snootch

You Just Say[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) 15:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was redirected here because "you just say" kind of sounds like U-S-A... In any case, its WP:RFD#D2 confusing because it's not mentioned at that article and due to its vagueness. Tavix | Talk  17:29, 5 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_5&oldid=1138580387"