Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2015.

Athetlics middle distance[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) 18:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo SFB 23:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if it wasn't misspelled it would have issues with referring to that target. Let's not get into it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 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.

Andrew Hurley (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 wrong forum. The heart of this discussion is to remove the disambiguation page, which is the redirect's target. If the page is to be removed, then a primary topic for the term "Andrew Hurley" has to be established, which is not included as a discussion point in this nomination. To nominate one of the topics on the disambiguation page for primacy, please either utilize the Wikipedia:Requested moves process to move Andrew Hurley to Andrew Hurley (disambiguation) while suggesting if "Andrew Hurley" should become a redirect towards Andy Hurley or if Andrew Hurley (academic) should be moved to Andrew Hurley. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target disambiguation page only has two linked articles and both articles are already hatnoted to each other. Checkingfax (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. Redundant, I agree, but harmless, WP:RFD#K3. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically out of process. If Andrew Hurley continues to exist, then this redirect is required. If it is deleted, then this redirect can be deleted at the same time without further discussion. bd2412 T 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @BD2412: I was thinking this as well yesterday. On that note, I'm about to close this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 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.

Matt Mahoney[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 Matthew Mahoney. I've listed the PAQ person there, and I'll first move the title to Matthew Mahoney (programmer) to preserve the history of the former article. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PAQ#History does not contain Matt Mahoney's information. Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the DAB at Matthew Mahoney, which is a WP:TWODABS to Matthew Mahoney (New York) and Matthew Mahoney (footballer). We don't seem to have the abbreviated form of the initial name. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew. Rubbish computer 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to the dab page per above -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew. --Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are any of the Matthew Mahoney's known as Matt? -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this has been made into a mess; can everyone stop nominating these articles for multiple levels of deletion for a few minutes, and/or use the preview button? Matt Mahoney is mentioned many times at the target, but not in a way which explains his significance. I assume he's a creator of the algorithm or something, but it should be mentioned there. The Matthews Mahoney are different people. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I've sorted out the multiple AfDs for Matthew Mahoney and restored the Rfd notice after Tavix reverted Si's close.
  • Keep - as for Matt Mahoney, yes, he does seem to be the creator or (one of) the primary contributor(s) to this compression algorithm, so this redirect going to PAQ (section or not) is appropriate. We should probably mention more about him there for context. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the cause of the mess, may I please apologise. I am not sure exactly what I did, but thanks all for sorting it out. I thought it was a no-brainer retarget but obviously I am mistaken. I did use the preview button, but I was getting a lot of edit conflicts yesterday, just kinda my connection lagging maybe. Sorry once again. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I reverted your close because it was a WP:BADNAC: "Non-admin closures are not appropriate when the non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved." -- Tavix (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We probably all could have saved some headache here if we had used our talk pages, but no matter, these things can always be worked out. I apologize for my part in the mess, my message here was a bit terse. I have fixed one more error I didn't catch yesterday but everything should be A-OK now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 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.

Technical tap[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21#Technical tap

Inner South London Line[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) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion discussion for Outer South London Line, the designation of the South London Line as two separate "inner" and "outer" lines was invented by an editor (the "outer" line is a non-notable service pattern) and is/was solely used on Wikipedia. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing and perhaps, yeah, just invented. It doesn't sound very British English to me, and this is not how we generally deal with railways. @Mjroots: is somewhat of an expert on these things so he might advise, (he helped me to learn how to do {{Railway template diagram}}s many years ago). Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we also have Template:Inner South London Line RDT as a redirect to {{South London Line RDT}}. I would be inclined to add that to the nomination. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just one of those things, (checked the deletion discussion) where people say oh rewrite it and find sources and there are no sources because nobody calls it this, all roads and rails lead back to Wikipedia. Not WP:RS for the first thing. This does not serve our readers. Not at target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. It could just possibly be redirected as e.g. Super Outer Circle does, but that seems rather nonobvious. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My third hit is for Brixton tube station, which is on the Northern line (there is not a Southern line on the Tube, although the Victoria Line crosses the Thames near Vauxhall and then comes back up with the Victoria Line extension via Brixton ending up in Tower Hamlets to meet with the Docklands Light Railway. We could take it via Southern Railway, a DAB at which Southern Railway (UK) and Southern (train operating company) are listed for British entities, but most from the US and Australia, so again I think that would be confusing: most of my attempts via gsearch tend to go ultimately to the London Underground, but your results may differ? that is a bit WP:SURPRISEing to me cos I don't live anywhere near London. We do have Northern line extension to Battersea, which is on the south side of the River Thames, but I have a feeling I am turning into It All happened on the 8:23 to Fenchurch Street, A Monty Python parody of an Agatha Christie detective plot. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inner Southern London Line or Inner London Southern Line would seem more normal Br. Eng. to me, but perhaps that is just me: And we have neither of them. For completeness, we don't have Outer London Southern Line nor Greater London Southern Line either. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't invent names for railway lines, like "Inner London Southern Line" which doesn't exist in any railway literature. "South London Line" is a term that has been used by the railway companies of that area for well over 100 years. It is presently defined as the route between Peckham Rye Junction and South Bermondsey Junction, and the westernmost two tracks between South Bermondsey Jc and London Bridge station. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point of this discussion. I was inventing railway lines on purpose to show that this is a stupid one, I didn't invest in railway mania. We are not discussing that, but Inner London Southern Line. It would have been more helpful had you linked Bermondsey Junction which is red, Bermondsey Junction which is red Bermondsey Jc as you put it is red, also Bermondsey Jc. with the full stop period as exactly you put it. I don't think that to invent an artifice to explain the problem is needless. London Bridge, as you would expect, is red. Sometimes I wonder why I have to do others' homework. I'll get the list of track workings for the Southern Region of British Railways if you really want, but that is not the point, it is where we are likely to make some use of this redirect. Si Trew (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? What have those redlinks got to do with anything? I didn't say Bermondsey Junction, I said South Bermondsey Junction; also, it's not a station, but a point where two lines meet, and is ten chains north-west of South Bermondsey railway station. "Jc" is conventional abbr for "Junction". Railway lines are defined by their endpoints, perhaps one or two intermediate points too. Except in the case of terminal stations, those endpoints are junctions with other lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A railway line is not a railway station. We do not have South Bermondsey Junction and we do not have North Bermondsey Junction, and actually, if you look back, you didn't even say junction but Jc. which redirects to a DAB at JC. Now I am a fool, but not a damnfool. I have no idea where you are coming from either. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use links; you did. I also did not put a full stop after "Jc"; again, you did. In my first post I wrote "South Bermondsey Junction" once, and "South Bermondsey Jc" once, and I did not use a full stop so don't make accusations that you can't support with evidence. There are several abbreviations for "Junction" that are in common use in UK railway literature: "Junc", "Jct" and "Jc" are three of the most common.
If you look at any reputable railway atlas, every railway junction has a name. Have a look at
  • Yonge, John (November 2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 3A. ISBN 978-0-9549866-4-3.
which not only uses the name "South London" for the route that I described (the word "Line" being implied), but also explicitly names a point on that line as "South Bermondsey Jn" (no full stop), and gives its distance as 1 mile 49 chains from London Bridge station - South Bermondsey railway station is shown as 1 mile 59 chains. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us I think is disputing that, just somehow along the line (if you'll excuse the pun), we are arguing in completely different directions. I have around here somewhere a Rail Atlas of Great Britain which I picked up I think at a bus rally at Quainton Road many years ago, but the point is not whether it's a junction or a station or a whatever, but that it's confusing to readers if they shove this in and get any of many different results, all plausible but incorrect. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought you did say "Jc." with the stop but I certainly apologise for saying that of you incorrectly. I don't think it's kinda a major problem to this argument, but certainly I don't want to accuse any other contributor wrongly, and for that, once again I say sorry. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 14 September 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_September_13&oldid=1142587084"