Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2015.

Aeon of Strife[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 both to Multiplayer online battle arena. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overlapping page name, Aeon of strife is a redirect to a different, more germane page. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as {{R from misspelling}}, then. Si Trew (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so fast. This concept is discussed at Multiplayer online battle arena, but not at Races of StarCraft#Protoss. We can probably all agree that the upper- and lowercase variants shouldn't have different targets. But why would the Races of StarCraft page be a more suitable target if the topic isn't mentioned there? --BDD (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aeon of strife was a mod of starcraft, featuring the protoss. in all reality, it might be notable enough to have it's own article, but for the moment, actually, you're probably right, although, it's probably be redirected to the history subsection, rather than just to the article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to the same target, whatever it is. Multiplayer online battle arena is better, it actually contains the phrase and says what it is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the Protoss are the more relevant topic here, but the subject is only mentioned at the MOBA page. Is Aeon of Strife notable in its own right? An article may be best. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ok, now I'm the one wearing the non-gamer hat and not understanding what you all are talking about. The phrase "aeon of strife" appears in the lede at MOBA and nowhere at the Starcraft article (neither do the separate words "aeon" nor "strife"). The proper outcome here is quite obviously retarget to multiplayer online battle arena, at the current time. If Aeon of Strife is notable for a separate article, it can be written over the redirect. I don't know what it is so I'm not going to comment on that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the second one doing the same, an Aeon we have,, Strife we have. I get aeons of strife from my missus. But this must make no sense except to a gamer. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I really appreciate your edit summary, first of all. Second, I haven't played this or any Starcraft game myself, but if I understand correctly, Aeon of Strife was a Starcraft mod formatted as a MOBA featuring the Protoss. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to notify WPVG before; I'll do so now. (YOU MUST CREATE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES?) --BDD (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplayer online battle arena reads that Aeon of Strife was the first MOBA, and usually things which are the first something are considered notable, so I can see creating an article in this space. However, I think the fact that it happened to feature the Protoss is somewhat irrelevant, the redirect should go to MOBA, the page which discusses it, with no prejudice against a future article. Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Multiplayer online battle arena. Any significance the mod holds relates to its role in early in the history of the MOBA genre. The usage of the protoss race in the game is trivial, since it has no bearing/notablity in regards to Starcraft or Protoss lore. My two cents. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the term "wikia:starcraft:Aeon of Strife" originates as a period of time in the Protoss race history in the game StarCraft. Then, some enterprising map developer for StarCraft borrowed the term to describe the kind of map he was developing. The phrase AOS continued on into Warcraft 3, where I'm skeptical that anyone playing AOSs then who hadn't played StarCraft knew what the term represented. Then it morphed into "Dota-like" when DotA became a big game, then subsequently (and competing) MOBA and ARTS.

    My opinion is thus that they should both redirect to MOBA. But at the least they should be consistent --Izno (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Multiplayer online battle arena since the term is at least discussed there. I do like Starcraft lore but I think the term has already evolved to be used in things outside Starcraft. --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 23 March 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.

Plowback retained earnings[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; by default no action is taken.

I only get one chance as a previously uninvolved admin in this inflamed debate so this is my best attempt. If anybody disagrees, there's nothing to stop DRV3 from happening, but be warned that there may not be many admins left who are willing to deal with this...

I understand the locus of discussion as follows:

  • RfD1 - closed as no consensus
  • DRV1 - NC closure endorsed
  • RfD2 (this page) - closed as no consensus after a protracted discussion
  • DRV2 - majority consensus was overturn closure but there wasn't a consensus on a keep/delete recommendation.
  • RfD2, relisted (this page)

Given the controversial nature of this discussion, I can only weigh each participating editor's argument against policy, but not against external evidence. Throughout RfD2 (both before and after relisting) I see clear disagreement between a sizeable "delete" camp arguing this redirect is "implausible" and "useless", versus a sizeable "keep" camp arguing this redirect is "unambiguous" and "useful". Sadly for such a long discussion, I feel it is beyond the closing admin's remit to wade in and assess strengths of the arguments about the linguistic / professional "correctness" of the phrase "plowback retained earnings" because this is beyond Wikipedia policy. I can only rely on the judgement of editors in this discussion, which disagree with one another. So, the only conclusion I feel comfortable drawing is that editors in this discussion disagree on the application of the RfD guidelines. Deryck C. 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Plowback retained earnings" is a made-up phrase, invented with the sole purpose of creating this redundant content fork which for some reason was redirected rather than deleted. The redirect should be deleted, not only because it's implausible and useless, but also because it confuses the reader as our autocomplete algorithm will display it every time "Plowback" is typed into the search box thus suggesting we have two separate articles on the subject. We don't. For a more elaborate rationale, see the previous discussion which was closed two months ago and apparently resulted in "no consensus:" Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_10#Plowback_retained_earnings. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have Plowback which makes Plowback retained earnings redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[1] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AADD doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:AADD as a whole doesn't always apply to RfDs. However, in this particular case, WP:ITSUSEFUL very much does apply, and that's why I made a reference to it. If we were to accept that simply stating "the redirect is useful" was enough to prove its usefulness and thus prevent its deletion, we could just as well shut RfD down as one disruptive editor with enough free time on his/her hands would have the power to effectively close all RfD discussions as "keep" by making that statement over and over. Common sense would dictate that this simply isn't the way to go. I'm all for keeping useful redirects, but Plowback retained earnings isn't useful. If you believe otherwise, let's hear how it's useful. Making unsubstantiated assertions of the redirect's usefulness, especially in a situation where there have been numerous arguments presented in favor of its deletion, including the policy-based argument that it violates WP:POVNAME in that it fails to "anticipate what readers will type as a first guess," is entirely unhelpful, so as not to say disruptive. If you want the redirect to be kept, let's hear what makes it so useful that we need to retain it despite all the problems with it that were indicated by the nominator. And no, simply stating "because it's useful" won't do the trick. I must say that I find your interpretation of WP:RFD#KEEP #5 at least as bizarre as I find the weight you seem to give to it, seeing how it's neither a policy nor a guideline. Do you honestly believe that what WP:RFD#KEEP #5 means is "as soon as someone says "it's useful," the discussion should be closed and the redirect kept?" If that's the case then perhaps it's high time we reworded that inconsequential piece of advice it as in its current form it's apparently a source of confusion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was Keep with Steel1943 when I came to this relisting, but I think better to add at the DAB and R there.
  • Reason for keeping: "Plowback" (also → Retained earnings) is, I think, is something specific to the U. S. (and not just U. S. English but the country); but in British English were it anything it would be ploughback): since that is red, it tends to show this is a U. S. specific term. And since the term exists and directs people to where they probably would like to go, it would be absurd to do anything else with it.
  • Reason for DABbing: Ploughshare or Plowshare is just about possible, I suppose. (I note with some disdain that the lede says "international English" instead of "British English"... as if "international English" means anything: see WP:ENGVAR).
Isiah 2:4 has it in KJV "they will beat their swords into ploughshares" (of course variously translated), and perhaps the difference between a plowback vested in stocks and shares and a plowshare is something genuinely ambiguous that we should care about. Hence I suggest the DAB: it may not be always what someone is expecting to find, and from a DAB this meaning would be only one click away. Si Trew (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Plowback" isn't ambiguous, it has only one meaning—that of reinvested profits.[2][3][4] Retargeting it as you suggest is thus out of the question unless you produce a reliable source that corroborates your claims of the word's ambiguity. Your comment presents an argument in favor of keeping Plowback, which isn't necessary as Plowback isn't being considered for deletion, but fails to present a valid argument for keeping Plowback retained earnings, which is being considered for deletion, and as such it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous rationale. To expand: when a corporation earns more in revenue in a fiscal period then it spends in the same period, it has net income. Net income is either distributed to the corporation's owners as a dividend or kept for the corporation's use as retained earnings (note: this is quite simplified). These are proper business terms. The act of taking net income for retained earnings has become known as "plow back" (verb; versus "pay out" for dividends), and the amount itself has become known as a "plowback" (noun; compare "payout" for dividends). Those aren't proper business terms but are common enough; they even come into colloquial names for business performance measures such as "plowback ratio" (properly earnings retention ratio, the inverse of dividend payout ratio). The phrase "plowback retained earnings" is doublespeak nonsense; it's striving to invent a definition where there is none, and as I said in a different discussion, we shouldn't keep redirects from business terms which are so close to being entirely made up. See also Department of Redundancy Department. Ivanvector (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see both sides of both sides here. @Iaritmioawp:: If you dislike my refering to the R at plowback, then I put the same point to you: can you produce an RS for the entire phrase "Plowback retained earnings" then? I can't, so in that case, it should go Delete. But since R's don't have to be RS but only helpful, the point is moot: and since Plowback goes there, and why I mentioned it, there seems little chance of confusion and it can go Keep. Howewer, I could be swayed by Ivanvector's RS suggesting that if it meant anything in its own right, it would be almost the opposite of what "plowback" means in the fiscal sense, in which case anyway it could be kept as an {{R from opposite}}, but that would be stretching it as a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that says those often go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was not that "plowback" and "retained earnings" are opposites. They are synonyms (the opposite of opposites!) with a possible subtle difference in usage, since plowback can also be a verb. But your confusion backs up my point: this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was your "doublespeak", above, that made me think that... I fess up, I didn't check your RS. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, SimonTrew, no; neither I nor anyone else can produce a reliable source that uses the phrase "plowback retained earnings" because the phrase, as I've already noted twice, was invented by the creator of the Plowback retained earnings page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Plow back (@Ivanvector: "...has become known as "plow back") is red, but plough back is a very stubby economics article (just a WP:DICDEF and not a good one). Both should probably be R'd to whatever Plowback redirects to (currently Retained earnings), but I'm disinclined boldly to do so while this discussion is in progress. I'd also be inclined to add those to this nomination, but that would be out of order (I assume) after the relisting. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have redirected it; thanks for pointing it out. It is clearly the same thing as plowback, just a UK English spelling. Neither are mentioned at retained earnings but our finance articles are a bit of a horrible mess. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first time I heard of this term was in an American English book and I had no idea what it meant (even though I could guess what the correctBritish spelling would be, the term itself was not common in the UK and I am not sure is even now: I think in Br. Eng. it is generally called something different. A bit odd, then, that the term was in Br. Eng. but not in US Eng: but the Rs there tend to indicate they've been created ad hoc. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interjecting here to respond to your comment; apologies to the few comments below. If you mean that you read "plowback" and interpreted "plough back" you are mostly correct, those would be interchangeable US/UK English. I couldn't tell you if "plough back" is used in UK English to mean "retained earnings", but "plowback" is used this way in US English. The proper term is "retained earnings" in both internationalisms. Regarding this redirect, "plowback" is the same as "retained earnings", however "plowback retained earnings" is meaningless. To make yet another analogy, you put cold beer in a refrigerator, but there is no such thing as a cold beer refrigerator. (Alternate: all fridges are beer fridges). Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: (interjecting back) Actually, I meant that I had never heard the word and had no idea what it meant... it was obviously something financial but had no idea what it could mean. The US vs UK spelling here is not at issue (with me) because obviously we can R one to the other &c., but I think the term is quite US centric and I genuinely had never heard it. The book was "From First to WorstWorst to First" by Gordon Bethune, then CEO of Contental Airlines, who used to fly with me a lot. A kinda motivational business book, ghost written by Greg Someone I think (I haven't it on my bookshelf here), and it was not obvious from context. Which is why it would be good to have an encyclopaedia article... oh, um... er... we do :) Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew, I'd like to remind you that you are participating in a discussion whose sole purpose is to establish whether Plowback retained earnings should be deleted or not. Please keep your comments directly relevant to the issue at hand. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion. That allows me to have a different opinion from yours. Thank you for reminding me. I did my research and others did too, so I am not sure who's the fool here. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All opinions are welcome as long as they're directly relevant to the subject of the discussion and supported by valid arguments. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:CONSENSUS, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than by a headcount. SimonTrew's above comment is nothing but a vote and should thus be disregarded by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Iaritmiawap is right, even though it pains me to say so. But here we don't tend to do all the how's your fathers of quoting policy but use WP:COMMONSENSE. The common sense seems to me that if we can't find a better place for it then stet, let it stand. I am a bit grumbly about kinda have the finger pointing at me but I will get over it. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense would dictate that if there are numerous reasons to delete a redirect and no reason to keep it, which is clearly the case here, the redirect should be deleted. So far, no valid reason to keep Plowback retained earnings has been presented. If you know of a reason why the redirect should be kept, let's hear it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Of course this is a discussion and your points are valid and appreciated (and none should be disregarded per se), however you seem to have put a !vote beside as many as five of your comments, and they aren't all the same. I think that it would help the closer of this discussion if you could summarize. Ivanvector (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that.... by "!vote did you mean the ones that say bolded "Comment"? I am genuinely confused here since I see only a keep after the relisting, and a I don't like going back and changing a !vote once something is relisted... but the second is a weak retarget to DAB. I gave after that reasons why I couldl see a delete or a reason to DAB, and those weren't intended as !votes but just to show I could see both sides of both sides. I won't make more confusion by bolding or referring to it here now (or adding links to policy here), but obviously I have caused unnecessary confusion.... for which I can only apologise. Ivanvector added an R that I pointed out was kinda missing with ENGVAR were it to stay, but that was not a !vote for it to stay, only that if we have one we should have the other. I have made this one messier than it could have been, and I'm sorry about that. And thanks all for their good faith in realising I was not trying to do anything other than make WP better. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do see I did put keep twice after the relisting. Sorry about that. Struck one, but kept the other. Hope that's less confusing rather than more... Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - the administrator who closed the deletion review as "relist at Rfd" did not relist (see their talk page). Since the result is not one which requires administrator rights to complete, I am completing it on their behalf. My opinion on the redirect has been thoroughly stated above, thus I do not intend to comment further in this discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.I think (for the best of reasons) you'd be wasting your time doing so. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as I've been officially deemed to be involved here, I might as well make it official. I'm thoroughly convinced that this redirect is unnecessary, but also that it is harmless and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This will take you to Retained earnings may be "harmless and unambiguous," but that's not enough to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:POVNAME, the relevant content policy, makes it very clear that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess." Neither This will take you to Retained earnings nor Plowback retained earnings satisfies this requirement; having such redirects doesn't improve the encyclopedia, and thus they ought not to be kept once proposed for deletion lest they encourage the creation of more such purportedly "harmless and unambiguous" redirects. I must also add that I disagree with your claim that the redirect is "harmless." Plowback retained earnings is harmful in that it's confusing to the reader, as has already been explained—see Ivanvector's comments as well as the nomination statement. It would be helpful if you would address this concern instead of simply asserting the redirect's harmlessness while completely ignoring the concerns regarding its potential for confusing our readers. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your argument relies entirely on WP:OSE—that the existence of this redirect will "encourage the creation" of others. That's just not true, and if you can give me any evidence of that, I seriously will rethink my position. This term needs to be evaluated on its own, not compared to a phantom menace of imagined similar redirects. You're really grasping at straws here, quoting bits of irrelevant policies like POVNAME. Nonsense. There's nothing non-neutral about this term. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will take your persistent failure to address the concerns regarding the redirect's potential for confusing our readers as a reluctant admission that they're well-founded. As for evaluating each redirect on its own merits, I entirely agree, but I don't believe I quite understand how that relates to my above comment; would you mind quoting the exact portion of the WP:OSE essay that you believe is pertinent here? Try as I might, I've failed to locate it. I must also say that I find your accusation that I am "grasping at straws" a bit ironic, seeing how it's predicated on the deeply flawed assumption that common-sense use of clearly applicable portions of various content policies is somehow disallowed in situations where said policies arguably don't apply in their entirety. Although the WP:POVNAME policy may not have been written with situations such as the one we're dealing with here in mind, the principle behind its wording, as well as the common sense advice it provides, is universally applicable as per WP:BURO. Do you honestly believe that it's not true that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess?" Do you truly consider that to be an unreasonable recommendation? If you do, would you mind explaining why? And if you don't, would you mind explaining why you object to my use of it? To me, it's common sense that implausible redirects shouldn't be allowed unless there's a good reason to allow them—and in the case of Plowback retained earnings such a reason simply doesn't exist. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A good redirect "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess", yes. And I don't think this is a good redirect. But absence of good isn't enough to delete. There are a great many redirects that readers would not likely type as a first guess that are nonetheless kept by consensus. One thing I think we can all agree on is that "Plowback retained earnings" can only reasonably refer to one topic. We address that topic at Retained earnings, so how is redirecting the term to that article harmful?
I referred to OSE perhaps more thinking of the first discussion of this redirect, where you compared the term to the likes of Tap faucet and Dictionary lexicon. That resembled the example argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." The absence of those terms hardly means this one needs to be deleted. To anticipate some likely questions: no, I don't think those should be created, but yes, if they were created in good faith, they should also be kept. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The examples I provided in the previous discussion were purely elucidative and thus had nothing to do with WP:OSE. I don't doubt that, as you say, "[t]here are a great many redirects that readers would not likely type as a first guess that are nonetheless kept by consensus," but it's irrelevant because, as you just aptly said, each redirect "needs to be evaluated on its own." I believe I should remind you that as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD, the default outcome of an RfD discussion is not to keep—it's to delete, and that the question to be answered in an RfD discussion is not whether the redirect is unambiguous or whether it was created in good faith—it's whether the redirect is likely to be helpful to our readers or not. Plowback retained earnings, as has been at length explained, is not by any stretch of imagination helpful to our readers. Thus, in the absence of a compelling reason to keep it, it ought to be deleted. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the default outcome for a "nomination which receives no other discussion". That's a pretty large omission, or oversight. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither an omission nor an oversight; it's quite clear to me that "discussion" here refers to more than a mere one-sided exchange of words. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no valid reason to keep the redirect and an overabundance of compelling reasons to delete it. Below, for convenience, is a reproduction of a table that summarizes all arguments presented in favor of keeping/deleting the redirect so far; the table was originally created for the purpose of making the job of editors at DRV easier, see this diff. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Click the "show" button to view the table
Common sense arguments
Delete Keep
•The redirect is redundant as we already have Plowback.[5]
•The redirect is a made-up nonsensical phrase of considerable length and thus isn't a conceivable search term.[6][7][8] 		n/a
Policy-based arguments
Delete Keep
•The redirect violates WP:POVNAME which states that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess."[9][10] n/a
Guideline-based arguments
Delete Keep
•The redirect fails to satisfy any of the reasons for creating and maintaining redirects listed at WP:POFRED. Although the list isn't exhaustive, its comprehensiveness is such that a redirect whose existence cannot be justified using it is unlikely to be of use.[11][12] •The redirect is useful. (Note: This argument was made in the form of an unsubstantiated assertion,[13][14] and was at length refuted;[15][16] no actual case was ever made for the redirect's usefulness beyond simple WP:ITSUSEFUL assertions that were never followed up on by the editors who made them.)
Other arguments/observations
Delete Keep
•The redirect has no incoming links.[17]
•The redirect is likely to confuse the reader.[18]
•The redirect has no history worth preserving.[19] 		•The phrase "plowback retained earnings" is unambiguous.[20] (Note: The relevance of that observation was challenged;[21] the challenge was left unanswered.)
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.

Carthorse[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 Withdrawn by your good servant (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC). I just retargetd it, being a bit bold.}}[reply]

It just goes to horse. And we've just decided, I think, that it should go to Horse-drawn vehicle. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 20 March 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.

United States national basketball team[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. George, I think United States national soccer team can be taken as a precedent for you to convert this title to a dab on your own. I suspect inertia is what's maintaining this odd status quo. There are a lot of incoming links which should be fixed first. For now, the redirect remains. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles are linking to this redirect. Shall I convert this redirect to a disambiguation page for men's and women's basketball? George Ho (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno. My guess would be that most of them mean the men's team, not the women's. That's not disparagement, but womens' sports, in real life, don't get the TV coverage that men's do. We do have to be realistic. How popular is the US womens basketball team, in your opinion? I mean, it's not the Harlem Globe Trotters. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I'm all for being "fair and balanced" and not sexist but in reality sexism in sport exists... so does antisemitism and whatever, we have to make a choice between what we'd like reality to be and what it actually is. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems that the target article already has a hatnote that also points to the United States women's national basketball team. --Lenticel (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it then, makes sense, as Lenticel always does. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS convert to a set index on all US national basketball teams -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do we do that? Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • By making a list page of all national basketball teams of the USA -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lenticel, SimonTrew: A request to scrap off "men's" from the title was attempted, but many opposed. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to think of alternatives in any sport. For example, it is just "horse racing" but "women's horce racing". I am not saying this is right, it is just reality. You can argue that men should play three sets at tennis, or women five, the fact is, this sexism exists, and Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs but to reflect reality. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 21 March 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.

Directions Techniques Des Constructions Naval[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) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

contains typographical error; redirect is unused, even as acronym . signed:Donan Raven (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article indicates DTCN Direction Technique des Constructions Navales, so making the typo form viable -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, makes sense to me. Possibly {{R from plural}} but that seems pushing it a bit with a foreign-language term I haven't even looked at the target but I can understand this and I bet they make big boats of some kind. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's a defence company (they are always changing their names). Still, keep. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the French article says in the lede they make great big ships to build up a military arsenal... whatever happened to Napoleon, he tried that one. Si Trew (talk) 10:41, 20 March 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_March_20&oldid=1037878114"