Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2015.

Wikipedia:Superprotect[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. I added a new section to WP:PP called "deprecated protection" (a la WP:CSD#Deprecated criteria), using the content of sst✈'s link so it will once again redirect to that specific section. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superprotect has been removed, so this redirect is no longer meaningful. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's got links from other pages, some of which are talk page archives. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and for history's sake, the protection policy should also list no-longer-used and not-used-here types of protections. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain per Oiyarbepsy. OR: restore superprotection from the archives of that page and create a new one here, marked historical. That's what we usually do when marking things historical, but this was part of a policy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It exists, and was used on the (I believe) German Wikipedia at one point. I do agree that the content should be restored, but have no strong opinion on whether it should be restored at the target article or restored as content overwriting the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "superprotect" level is no longer part of the MediaWiki software, it was removed earlier this month, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Superprotect is gone. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then add a hatnote explaining that it is no longer practiced and that curious editors/readers can look it up here --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't keep it and add a hatnote, since a hatnote will break the redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Steel1943 said --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 27 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.

Acceptable (disambiguation)[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. This is not the forum to dispute a close. Use WP:DRV for that. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for deletion. This is NOT a disambiguation page. Acceptable is already a redirect to Acceptance_(disambiguation). Nothing points to Acceptable (disambiguation) page or should ever point to this page. The page serves no purpose and does not do what the page title claims. Previous discussion here[1] Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – procedural close. This redirect was recently discussed and the decision was to retarget, which has been done. Also, the Proper dab page links to this redirect, or would if the nom would stop removing it. Backlinks should not be removed until this discussion has closed (if and only if it closes as "delete").  Paine  07:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user is protecting a page they created for no reason I can understand. They reversed a reasonable change at Proper twice now. Rather then making procedural arguments please explain the actual value and purpose of the convoluted setup being protected (Proper (a DAB. but not called that) -> Acceptable (disambiguation) but actually a redirect -> Acceptance (disambiguation) -> something a reader might learn something on.) Also, no one is restricted from editing links to a page while it is under discussion, it happens all the time as we try to improve on what we find. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate arguments have already been made – the previous discussion is closed. Why kick a dead horse? I know of no policy nor guideline that "restricts" the removal of backlinks; however, it is customary to leave them alone until a discussion has closed as delete. It makes no sense to delete backlinks, because according to WP:RFD, not having backlinks is not a good reason to delete a redirect. Be prosperous! Paine  08:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close – per recently closed nomination. You could have discussed with me first instead of renominating this for deletion so quickly. sst✈(discuss) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sst✈ given the points I put up here and in the closed discussion are you willing to withdraw your close and let an admin look at it (since us non-admins can't delete?) Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my previous discussion closure as retarget, and will not undo my close. If you disagree with it, you may take it to WP:DRV. sst✈(discuss) 08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you even DRV a Keep (retarget)? Seems like the directions and all the recent ones support only reversing deletes.... leaving us the option of renominating. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
gentle fyi: First paragraph at WP:DRV = Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. Be prosperous! Paine  13:12, 22 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.

Universal arrow[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 nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of this nomination, the target does not discuss the topic per se (and thus the redirect is unhelpful for the readers.) -- Taku (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Universal arrow" and "universal morphism" are terms used by mathematicians to refer to universal properties. If we don't have redirects for synonyms, then what are they for? The redirect may be helpful to a novice who sees the term "universal arrow" in a text, and goes to wikipedia to look it up. Ideally Wikipedia should have an article listing the term. But failing that, redirecting to a synonym is still helpful. Note that both terms (arrow and morphism) have redirects, but only the arrow term is proposed for deletion, so this deletion proposal is incomplete. (Disclosure: I am the creator of the arrow redirect). -lethe talk + 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I don't think they are synonymous; in fact, "universal arrow" is not even defined in the article (resulting in mystifying the readers). Note Mac Lane uses the term in a specific way (cf. Glossary of category theory#U). -- Taku (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Scratch what I said; sorry, I didn't read the article carefully. Yes, they are synonymous so the redirect makes sense. I'm going to add a note that they are synonyms. -- Taku (talk) 04:25, 23 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.

Loud roaring[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to understand what the idea of this redirect is, but lions roar, as do machines. Neelix creation for Admin's who might want to G6 it Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 22 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.

People are Exalted[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. Hey, have you heard my new band, People are Exalted? --BDD (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew meanings of a name, unlikely search term and vague as there are likely other names or uses for these terms. Neelix redirects (see similar nominations) Could be G6'd Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambiguate WP:BIAS there are other religions in the world besides Judaism-related ones -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:29, 22 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.

Stepmotherness[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all obscure , incorrect constructions by Neelix, part of a long list of step- redirects he made all at once. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all due to extreme implausibilitinesses. Sideways713 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all since these just don't seem like helpful redirects at all CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:27, 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.

Temporary test page[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 speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a temporary test, and is not really software testing as indicated by its target. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really a redirect but a test in a main page. I tagged it G6 Housekeeping. No need to discuss this one. 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and salt testing in mainspace -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things can only be tested in mainspace due to namespace-dependent behaviour. However, phab:T108727 was fixed after two months with a deployment in October so the test is no longer needed. It has been speedily deleted by Sphilbrick. If the bug had still been unresolved then I would have said keep. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 22 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.

Estheticisers[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) 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects from a long list of Neelix redirects created in one sitting that should be deleted. They are extremely obscure (under 500 ghits, including mirrors of Wikipedia) or fake words. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Should go to Aesthetics if anywhere, but not needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 23 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.

Aesthete[edit]

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

Aestheticizations[edit]

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

Estheticist[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) 17:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure off target variation of the targeted word by Neelix. Google thinks it's a mistake for Esthetician. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google is right, on the whole. To Aesthetics would be more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 23 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.

Nazist collaborator during World War II[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) 17:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among 77 redirects to this target created by Neelix in a row.Turns out Natzist is not really a thing, more like an error. Update: Nazist collaborator is also not a real thing. The variation Nazist is not commonly used in English, but can be a synonym for Nazism the ideology. One might collaborate with the Nazis but you can's collaborate with the ideology. The simplest version of this batch gets 14 unique ghits, at least 2 of which are related to this discussion and the rest are from this phrase escaping into the wild from the redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These aren't Natzist, they're Nazist. @Legacypac: your slip? I couldn't find "Natzist" used anywhere. I'm being pedantic, but with a purpose, since I wonder if you also searched etc. with that slip. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I did search a typo, so I updated the rational. Nazist is not used much in English either (lots of non-english results come up) but the stronger point is these are completely improbable constructions. Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 23 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_22&oldid=1037882078"