Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2015.

T:X11[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#T:X11

India proper[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#India proper

Steel worker[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. It looks like there is consensus for the idea that there should be an article here, but that's a matter for BOLDness, not an XfD decision. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to these redirects, in a nutshell: I am torn between keep-ing them as is, retarget all to Steel mill, or delete per WP:REDLINK since the specific subject as referred in the redirects is not identified in either Steel or Steel mill. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this is the best article for these redirects for now. I was also thinking of retargetting to hot working which also describes what can be termed as steel working. --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ironworker as a synonym. The other senses of "steel work" are not primary. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a steelworker works in a steel mill, an ironworker assembles steel frames -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have several steelworker union articles... United Steelworkers etc ; which would seem to indicate these should point to steel mill -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly there is a gap in coverage here. We should have an article about the profession, analogous to our ironworker article. I don't think these redirects to steel are encouraging that to happen, and there is insufficient coverage of the workers themselves to justify these redirects. This page suggests the solution. It's not a valid disambiguation, as the topic is unambiguous. Move it over the redirects at either steel worker or steelworker – I have no opinion on whether two words or the compound word is primary – and convert it to a stub. We can start with a broad overview of the steelworker unions. Copy the only line in steel directly referencing this topic to the stub: "In 1980, there were more than 500,000 U.S. steelworkers. By 2000, the number of steelworkers fell to 224,000." Really what we need is a content creator to build something here. Steelworkers make steel in steel mills. We have much better coverage of the 1943 penny ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: You said it! I've been working so hard that I haven't been as active on here lately so that I can reenergize! Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article per Wbm1058's points, at steel worker, retarget the others to it. --Rubbish computer 19:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ironworker as a synonym. It's right there in the article that an ironworkers "erect the structural steel framework..." of various structures. Not to mention that the two Ironworkers Memorial Bridges are both steel bridges, and named for workers who died in accidents building these steel bridges. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a synonym. Ironworkers erect steel frames. Steelworkers make steel, they don't erect steel frames. As an analogy, a lumberjack (steelworker) isn't a carpenter (ironworker), even though both work with lumber (steel). -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:57, 28 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.

Template:Sc[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) 13:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target from Template:Smallcaps all to Template:Smallcaps. The current target of this template is one that takes mixed-case input and forcibly converts it, permanently, to lower case, then displays it all in upper-case in small caps style. This is frankly, weird, an edge case, and generally highly undesirable. I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason to do that at all. If some text in mixed case is something we want to present in small caps for some reason, e.g. for a particular citation format that uses small caps for titles of major works, or for surnames, or whatever, we want the underlying case to be preserved. The problem with TOKUNAGA is that it copy-pastes as "tokunaga" not "Tokunaga" (by contrast, Tokunaga copy-pastes as "Tokunaga" as expected). The shortcut {{sc}} should go to the template that preserves information, not the one that (for most users, unexpectedly) strips it before applying the stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the transclusion count tool shows 1862 transclusions for this template. Won't redirecting the shortcut be likely to break things? ... On the other hand, do we have any style guides that recommend this formatting? It seems odd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: Yes, it will since we have no idea if the transclusions of this redirect are then pointing to the correct target. When a template redirect that has transclusions gets retargeted, all currently-existing instances of the transclusions need to be replaced with a direct link to the intended target; for articles, the ambiguous title would either get retargeted to a disambiguation page or become a disambiguation page. Since disambiguation pages are seldom, if ever, in the template namespace, all transclusions have to be skimmed through and replaced. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought so. It should be possible for a bot to do it, assuming that all of the current transclusions are pointing to the intended target. Otherwise they would need to be corrected anyway, and would need to be corrected whether or not we replaced the transclusion to {{smallcaps all}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I guess, in theory, a bot could do it. However, if the confusion exists as the nominator has, in one way or another, convinced me, doing so would probably cause more harm than good since there may be some existing transclusions of {{Sc}} that actually refer to {{Smallcaps}} instead of {{Smallcaps all}}. It would unfortunately be more efficient for editors to replace the transclusions by treating them in a way similar to correcting links to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Well, yeah, but my point is that if the transclusions of {{sc}} are meant to refer to {{smallcaps}} now, they don't, and they're wrong. They'll still be wrong if we replace the transclusion. How can we tell right now which template an editor who used {{sc}} means to refer to? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I understood what you meant completely. I'm honestly not sure if we can know which template an editor meant to link without looking at each transclusion individually. What I stated was that every transclusion of {{Sc}} would need to be verified by a human who clearly knows the difference between {{Smallcaps}} and {{Smallcaps all}} and replace the {{Sc}} transclusions accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: It actually seems to me, based on SMcCandlish's explanation and the link they provided to the documentation, that there is no valid use case for {{smallcaps all}} at all. So if we retarget and do nothing else, it will overall be an improvement even if some errors result. The documentation even seems to suggest that {{smallcaps all}} should never be used, so I'm wondering why it exists at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: That could very well be the case, but that really cannot be determined as a result of this discussion since this is a discussion about the usefulness and purpose of the nominated redirect. Just because there is rather credible rationale proving the target template useless doesn't mean that there are not any cases where an editor truly meant to transclude {{Sc}} as a shortcut to {{Smallcaps all}}. That determination really should be the decision of a discussion about {{Smallcaps all}} itself, which would probably happen at WP:TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I don't disagree. Maybe this discussion should be suspended pending the necessary discussion at TfD. In the meantime, I'll stick with what you said below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all 1862 transclusions can be replaced first per my comment to Ivanvector. If they are replaced, then I'm neutral since I have no preference on where the redirect targets. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/neutral (edit conflict × 2) per what Steel1943 says. I don't have any preference which formatting template the redirect points to, because I don't understand the use cases for either one. So "don't do shit unless". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it. A common usage (which we really shouldn't actually be using, per MOS:SMALLCAPS, but ...) is for doing this: "17 AD". This is terrible for two reasons: a) It's too small, and b) it copy pastes as "17 ad", which is wrong. The template {{Smallcaps2}} (a.k.a. {{Sc2}}) fixes that: "17 AD" (compare nomarkup: "17 AD", and {{Smallcaps}} version which looks like no markup: "17 AD").

    Between {{Smallcaps}} and {{Smallcaps2}} I'm still not thinking of a single legitimate use for {{Smallcaps all}}, because of the mangling it does to the underlying text. About the only thing I can think of that might not be accounted for and that would need to be manually corrected would be a nonsensical case where someone is supplying incorrect input to get desired output, e.g. coding something as T{{sc|OKUNAGA}} to get "TOKUNAGA". But that would just be boneheaded, since {{Smallcaps|Tokunaga}} does the same thing. There surely can't be much of that floating around. Anyway, see Template:Smallcaps/doc#Comparison of the small caps templates for how these things differ in their input and use. After {{Sc}} goes to {{Smallcaps}}, and broken uses of it are fixed (mostly either switching to {{Smallcaps2}} or removal of inappropriate attempt to style it as small caps in the first place), then {{Smallcaps all}} can simply be WP:TFDed as the content-corrupting abomination it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what about {{SC}} ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE SC means Sardinian language and Seychelles so "SC" and "sc" should be cleared from use, as most two letter templates on Wikipedia refer to languages or countries, and this is both a country and a language. These two templates should be salted -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't look like this discussion is going anywhere while there are still so many existing uses of the redirect. More time may allow for cleaning those up, and lead to clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:45, 24 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.

Teaching guru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#Teaching guru

Technology guru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6#Technology guru

Sports guru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 5#Sports guru

Pope Rat[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 WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3. While this can be a shortening of his surname (Ratzinger), applying the term "Rat" to a person usually has a negative connotation. Since this isn't in common use, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and delete this, since it could be a WP:BLP issue. -- Tavix (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason anyone would use this except for the negative connotation.--MASHAUNIX 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it's possible that his name would be shortened this way, it just hasn't been used by reliable sources at all that I can see. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above points, about to tag it. --Rubbish computer 19:24, 24 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.

Virgin cargo[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) 13:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at the target. Furthermore, Virgin Australia also has a cargo division [1], (perhaps other related companies as well), thus making this confusing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you know this will help, the term isn't mentioned there either? - TheChampionMan1234 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: It has been established above that at least two of the airlines at the dab has a cargo division, so this is a plausible target to it as a more general phrase describing cargo divisions of these airlines rather than one airline in particular, its current target. --Rubbish computer 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Neither of these articles mention the cargo division, neither does the dab, so I don't see any point in doing that, someone searching this term would likely already know about the airline(s), so this isn't the least bit helpful. - TheChampionMan1234 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: I think it's better if we just agree to disagree. --Rubbish computer 01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sympathetic to the idea of redirecting this, but given the lack of a really clear target... maybe it's just best to leave the text red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 25 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.

Recent Pope[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. I'm going to go ahead and retarget it to List of Popes#3rd millennium because a) it looks like that'd be the outcome anyway and b) I've decided that retargeting there is a good idea so it looks like we're all in agreement. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Yes, Pope Benedict XVI was a recent pope but there have been other "recent" pope's depending on how you want to define recent. -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this redirect on 22 March 2010 when Benedict XVI was still the pope, because at the time my English wasn't that great and I thought "recent" meant the same thing as "current". Thus, redirecting this to Pope Francis might be an alternative to deletion (I had also created the redirects Current pope and Current Pope on the same day, and those were redirected to Pope Francis by another user on the day his papacy began), but since it is vague when English is correctly applied, I am not opposed to it.--MASHAUNIX 02:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be confusing as the redirect implies one pope. Does this really get enough use to justify keeping it somewhere? -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Popes.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of popes#3rd millennium. That gives you the two most recent popes, and you only need to scroll up to see more. I suppose for something as longstanding as the papacy, even a few hundred years could be considered "recent". I'd say no need for a section redirect if we listed the popes in reverse chronological order there, but as is, we can at least start readers on the right side of the timeline. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could get behind that suggestion; it's much better than redirecting to the full list at least. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This option seems reasonable. The redirects have been viewed 8 times so far this month.--MASHAUNIX 18:44, 24 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_24&oldid=1037880896"