Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

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

In-app purchase[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 speedily retargeted. I boldly retargeted the redirect, revert if you disagree. Kharkiv07Talk 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be redirected to microtransaction, this is simply a synonym for microtransaction and the current link is essentially just a quick definition of microtransaction, why not give them the entire article? Kharkiv07Talk 22:42, 5 May 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.

Pion coiff&eacute[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) 13:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HTML markup in title. Gorobay (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pion coiffé is an actual (though old) chess handicap, but the redirect with markup is not useful. Ivanvector (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to possible technical issues caused by markups. --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not valid HTML markup (without the terminating semicolon) and would not be recognised as WikiMarkup, which we disdain in titles anyway. It's simply an error. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a plausible typo for pion coiffé. Elassint Hi 04:32, 12 May 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.

Maryanoff[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 procedural close as the surname article (it's not a disambiguation) is now live. (Alternatively, you can call this a WP:SNOW close). (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce E. Maryanoff is one person with the last name Maryanoff, but not the only one; this redirect makes it harder to find the others, so I would suggest removing it. The default behavior of going to the search page would be preferable to being redirected to a wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, page drafted below the redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Oiyarbepsy. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Oiyarbepsy. --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Oiyarbepsy. Incidentally, @Oiyarbepsy:'s way of putting it below the R is much better than what I usually do, create a draft page: since the redirect is knocked out anyway while this discussion is in progress, it makes sense to put the alternative below it. I'll do that from now on. Saves having to CSD the draft etc. Much more sensible. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 6 May 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.

Vigorexia[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. Valid spelling variant. (non-admin closure) Elassint Hi 04:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Vigorexia" appears to be Spanish for "Bigorexia." Delete as non-English word. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; perfectly cromulent redirect from language. pablo 11:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is used in English. [1] and [2] are some examples. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given Oiyarbepsy's finds. Worth noting that the target is under merge discussion, but that probably wouldn't affect the outcome here. Ivanvector (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible spelling variant. --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I would have thought, actually, Vigorexia was the more common term in English but the Spanish results from Google are blocking. V and B in Spanish are used interchangeably in some dialects, but I'm having a hard time to find an article to describe that; Spanish pronunciation → Spanish phonology, and B is listed in section Spanish phonology#Consonants (as a voiced labial stop) but V isn't (there are some unvoiced stops but V is not a stop but a fricative, this is IPA in that table not Latin alphabet, but even so, it appears to be missing, depending on clasification it is a voiced labiodental fricative: We have "θ" in that table that pipes to voiceless dental fricative but this is voiced i.e. you use your voice box when sounding it). I realise this is about phonology and not Spanish orthography but even so it seems a gap, we need kinda to link the two together better. To my eyes, it's been written by people who know all about it (great!) but forgotten their audience a little (i.e. ignorant people like me). One only has to think of how "Viva España" and think of how often you've heard it, to realise that some pronounce it "Biba". Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 6 May 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.

Nwa-restructuring.com[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, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website is now in Japanese (and looks to be a book club??) Delete as harmful/unuseful. Tavix | Talk  05:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment thanks for the info WhisperToMe. I will still maintain my delete vote but now I understand why this redirect was created. --Lenticel (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation, WhisperToMe. Was probably useful when that website was about the restructuring, but since it is currently not, this redirect is misleading and should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 14:15, 5 May 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.

Errors in the United States Constitution[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) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the US Constitution doesn't discuss any errors and it doesn't appear that any articles do. This redirects gives the wrong impression that we have content about errors, when we don't. Best to delete, unless someone wants to write and article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is as good as mine. I was an admin here for about 5 months in 2013 and averaged 5,000 deletions per month. At the same time, I was averaging 15,000 deletions per month on Commons. You'd need a current admin to look at the deleted revision that contains the speedy nom. INeverCry 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should restore the original page under the title Usa constitution, since it appears that we have history to preserve? Either way, re-creating the redirect doesn't address the issue, it needs to be genuinely undeleted for that purpose. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but what Oiyarbepsy said may make sense, how can I tell without having that article back? I remember reading an article or something in a book about "errors" that is to say that what the Constitutional Congress(?) said was not quite what was written down, but they are just transcription errors not errors in sense, (perhaps they should have got John Hancock to do it), they didn't mistakenly give the Moon to the Ottoman Empire or anything. It's an interesting bywater but it doesn't matter much. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thinking about this more, I suppose many people think there are errors in the US constitution e.g. the right to arm bears, so in that political sense it would be WP:NPOV, even as a redirect. But what is the intent, to point out spelling/transcription errors (spelling was very fluid at that time) or "errors" in that it should have said something else? If the latter, surely US Constitution#Article Five, which quotes about the "amendment of errors", would be a possible {{R to section}}? Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is no information about errors in the Constitution on the target page, but no prejudice against userfying the former article in case anyone actually wants to execute the merge suggested by consensus at the Afd. It's not useful as it is and there is no point preserving the history for a non-visible page. Ivanvector (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:So, then, you've looked at the deleted page and determined that nothing was merged? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: No, I don't have that access. I assume that nothing was merged because there's nothing in the target article now. It could have been merged and then subsequently edited out, but the result is the same. Ivanvector (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have restored all the history so that it can be reviewed for this RFD. -- GB fan 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, GB fan. Here's my read on what happened. After the Afd, Lambiam did merge the article into the current target. The new "misspellings" section evolved over time into a short "original errata" section, which later was part of a large section spun off into a new article, United States Constitution as a civic religion. That page has since also been deleted due to having its content merged to American civil religion, but a discussion on that article's talk page suggests the merge was undiscussed, and was not viewed favourably by editors on that page. At first our "original errata" section was flagged {{offtopic}}, then cut completely by Rjensen who, upon restoring the content to History of the United States Constitution, did not include it. It is therefore gone, unless someone wants to try to recreate it, but in the meantime this redirect is misleading. Ivanvector (talk) 22:27, 5 May 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.

Near Future in film[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) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really useful as it has to be updated every year and I don't really see it being a plausible search term. Tavix | Talk  01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense, WP:RFD#D5. The "near future" is apparently 2014. Now, forgive me if my watch has stopped, but I think we are in 2015, so this is the "near past". Classic example of why we don't have this kind of redirect, as they need constant updating, and nobody ever does. We are not IMDB, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per the apples-to-oranges redirect thing (redirecting "near future" to a date in the past). These sorts of always-require-maintenance redirects are not useful and become harmful as soon as the creator/maintainer forgets about them. Ivanvector (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. JZCL 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not appear to be a suitable alternative target for films in which the future is depicted with a specifically near term perspective. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:12, 11 May 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_May_5&oldid=1144418262"