Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2015.

Draft:Transactive Energy[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 deleted by Athaenara under G7. I can confirm that the author did indeed request deletion. If anyone starts a larger discussion about such redirects, please inform me. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redirect from the draft page. Beagel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I don't see any need to ever delete this. One particular reason is that if the draft is moved by someone other than the creator, and the creator is a new user, that new user might then think that their page was deleted for being no good. In this case, it looks like the creator moved it themself, but there is still no harm in having this redirect here. It communicates to all that a draft was promoted, and there really is no benefit at all in deleting. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from move}}, WP:RFD#K5. I don't see any reason to remove redirects from drafts moved to article space, unless the article gets deleted (WP:G8) or the author of the article requests it (WP:G7). Otherwise it's harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from move}} Comment. This redirect serves to help the draft's creator or anyone who may have edited the draft locate their work. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish some official guidance had been created on this question when draft space was implemented. Individually, these seem harmless, but collectively, they amount to a lot of clutter. (And somewhat misleading—this redirect, for example, does not take a reader to a draft on the topic.) Personally, I don't leave redirects when I publish my own drafts, though non-admins would need to use a CSD tag to do that. Just thinking aloud here, I could see value in setting an expiration date from redirects like that. A year, say, or six months. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Good point. This one clearly serves a different purpose than that "(2)" redirect that appeared recently. Thus, I have changed my "Keep" to "Comment". Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G13 uses six months as its "expiration date." Maybe we could work on a proposal to extend that to redirects? -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a good starting point. If you'd like to work on something together, maybe let's let this resolve first and then proceed. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The six month deadline is only for AFC headers. There are plenty of old pages in draftspace without the AFC banner who aren't G13 eligible. You would have to expand to the greater idea of draftspace and people defend using draftspace without AFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re targetto the article talk page Thats our standard practice to maintain attribution. I have no idea why it wasn;t done here--usually the program does it automatically if it is moved via the AfC process. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's what the AfC program actually does and has been built in from the start, I don't recall we ever debated what it should do, as it's always seemed reasonable. Do you think it should be changed for some reason? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For one, there's no attribution that needs to be retained. When the draft is moved to the main-space, the attribution moves with it. -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DGG, could you clarify? As long as the article is properly moved, the redirect is unnecessary for attribution. If it's improperly moved, a histmerge is called for anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
quite possibly, but take it up with the afc people. I didn't design the system., though I've been trying without much success to get it improved. There are at this point several thousands of these redirects. I'll notify their talk page. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN. Am I reading these correctly? There was strong consensus at AfC to delete leftover redirects after a period of time, that was overturned by CSD people, and now there's nothing? Either way, draft namespace wouldn't necessarily have to operate the same way—it seems G13 only applies there if an AfC tag is used—but it would be good to be clear on AfC practice, if that's possible. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: That appears to be the case. I'm unaware of any other further discussions, or if there were discussions in other fora. As you correctly stated, G13 only works for AfC-templated drafts, be they actual Drafts or talkspace submissions which was the system we had previously. There's a bot at the moment that tags the requisite old submissions and warns their creators. As for AfC practice, at present the AfC script places a redirect when a draft is moved to mainspace. There is no further action on our part after the fact. If we are to address what to do with these redirects, I would suggest a more general venue. I would also pertinently ping @Theopolisme: and @APerson:, our two experts. Technical 13 was also among that group, but he was banned following an ArbCom case. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the nominator can show how this redirect actively harms the encyclopedia as a whole by existing, the dictum "Redirects are cheap" applies a positive keeping case. Unless the user who is moving the draft into mainspace is a administrator, you cannot suppress the redirect that is left behind when you move the page (and it's history) into mainspace (or a new title). There are thousands of these redirects from old AFC space (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/) and Draft namespace that point at mainsapce articles. As said before this is to that editors who were working on the draft can find their way to the mainspace article. The only case we'd need to crawl through this class of redirects is if there was a double redirect, and there's already several well crafted bots that handle solving that if it becomes a problem. Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Harm is created by implying a draft where there is none. Weak because this is still recent, and it would be better to approach this problem systematically. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 1 December 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.

13 November 2015[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 2#13 November 2015

EMHC[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 dabify. Thanks to Tavix for doing the work. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a disambiguation page or redirect to Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion RJaguar3 | u | t 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is there any evidence at all that the church official's position is ever abbreviated? The hockey club is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate GHits for the minister run about twice those for the hockey team (which isn't surprising, considering the number of Catholics). Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, I'll draft one below the redirect. To answer Ivan's question: yes. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 30 November 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.

Gyprocks[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.The arguments for deletion are convincing and the pre-nomination stats are so negligible that it is not a likely misspelling. Just Chilling (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a correct spelling. It is the name of a .au company in the drywall business. Should point at an article about the company, if such an article is appropriate Legacypac (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Gyproc is a brand name of drywall, and it's broadly common in North America to refer to all drywall by that name (much like Kleenex is a brand of facial tissue). "Gyprock" is pretty close, but the plural does not add an S, so this construction is nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a mispelling of 'gyprock' (yes "gyprock" commonly appears [1] so, not just 'gyproc') -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but remember Gyproc is like sheep-never spelled with an S.Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's not "like sheep": "sheep" is a countable noun (one sheep, two sheep) that has the same form in singular and plural (like "three fish[es]", "ten head [of cattle]"). "Gyproc" is an uncountable noun. (Less relevantly, I'm not sure that "gyproc" is a genericized trademark like "kleenex", in English at least. I found some sources that say it is, but I think it would need a court case to decide it.) Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least in my area we buy gyproc- say "100 sheets of gyproc", or "You need to pick up some gyproc" even "there are 5 kinds of gyproc" in at Home Depot. There is no plural and everyone knows you mean drywall or gypsum board Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I was trying to make as well. Nobody (that I know of or have ever heard) refers to "gyprocs" or "drywalls". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:07, 21 November 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.

Douzaine[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 Parishes of Guernsey. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the french word - we are not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Parishes of Guernsey, which describes (what I believe is) the only encyclopedic topic regularly called "Douzaine" in English (elected bodies which administer each parish). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to Roulette where it is used as the technical naming of features; hatnote Guernsey. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Passe currently redirects to Fashion, which doesn't mention it (or passé). I'm inclined to retarget that too if we do this. Manque redirects to manqué. impair is red, pair is a DAB with the entry "Even number, in roulette etc", and rouge a DAB that doesn't mention roulette, similarly noir. 'Sieurs et dames, faîtes vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Parishes of Guernsey. I think the Roulette reference is a WP:PTM, because I only see it as: Premiere douzaine, Moyenne douzaine, Dernière douzaine. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a hatnote there if someone is so inclined. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 30 November 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.

Leader theory[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far too vague. Redirect to Leadership, perhaps, where various theories about leaders are included. I wouldn't object to ruling either of these an unlikely search term, though, especially the wordier "theory of the leader". --BDD (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to leadership per nom. WP:BIAS This is not the North Korea Wikipedia, there are other leader topics in the world besides the Kims. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to leadership per nom and the IP user above. This is not an established term in either North Korean political lingo ("leadership method" is) or in Western North Korean studies. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:31, 25 November 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.

Dear Leader[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 List of Kim Jong-il's titles. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase isn't used at the target article, though "Great Leader" and "Sacred Leader" are. It seems like a rough match for Great Leader (a dab). And for what it's worth, it's been a target for political vandalism (e.g., redirecting it to Obama). --BDD (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why prefer the list to the bio, when the latter mentions the name early on? Are people likely to be looking for information on his other titles, or on him? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of leaders of North Korea (Leader of North Korea already redirects there). It is the article that discusses in details all leaders' titles and should (although it presently doesn't) make mention of informal titles that even North Koreans have applied inconsistently to refer to Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung. B.R. Myers addresses this in some of his writings, but I can't remember for the life of me where. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:28, 25 November 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.

Donal Wales[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. Ivanvector, please let me know if that's not alright with you. --BDD (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a partial-title match and a novel or very obscure name for our Dear Leader. BDD (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment since redirects are not disambiguation pages, PTMs are fine, if they are not obscure in use -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But PTMs are proscribed for dab pages exactly because they're not likely search terms. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's Jimbo Wales, why not have some spare redirects just for him? WP:CHEAP -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per anon. I was thinking that this would be a plausible misspelling for "Donald Wales" but we don't have an article with that name. I only found List of Bluebird record-breaking vehicles#Donald Wales at the moment. --Lenticel (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Jimbo is never known simply as "Donal Wales." I'll change my !vote if anyone can provide me a reliable source calling him that. -- Tavix (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jimbo himself wants it kept which works for me. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, unless someone disproves that logic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jimmy is his first name. Not sure if he has been called Donal. The redirect could cause confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jimmy Wales indicates on his talk page that he has published a paper as J. Donal Wales, making this a plausible redirect. See LINK. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep can't see how it could cause any confusion. If a Donal Wales, or even a Donald Wales shows up, we can change it then. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:52, 26 November 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_November_21&oldid=1149826477"