Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 6

April 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 6, 2016.

Trump Train[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 14#Trump Train

List of basic classical topics[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 Outline of classical studies. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic classical topics → Classics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Delete~~ per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic classics topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline of classical studies. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'd noticed that some others were like that, but was unaware of this article's existence. Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of classical studies as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of classical studies per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the title held non-trivial history before being moved, then merged. No objection, however, to overwriting with a better target. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2016 (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.

List of basic humanism topics[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 Outline of humanism. JohnCD (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic humanism topics → Humanism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Delete~~ per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic humansim topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline of humanism. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'd noticed some others were like that, but was unaware of this article's existence. Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of humanism per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (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.

List of basic art topics[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 Outline of the visual arts. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic art topics → Art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Delete~~ per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic art topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline of the visual arts. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'd noticed some others were like that but was unaware of this article's existence (which kinda proves the need for the redirect per WP:RFD#K5). Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of the visual arts per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (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.

Unarmed combat[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. Der yck C. 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unarmed combat → Hand-to-hand combat (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The second sentence of the lede says that "While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons" (the article's emphasis not mine). And since unarmed combat isn't always hand-to-hand combat, it's hard to make sense of this redirecting there. But I don't know what to suggest other than delete, which seems a bit harsh. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Armed conflict at April 6's log (Armed conflict → War). Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we either need an "Unarmed combat" subsection within the hand-to-hand combat article, or a separate unarmed combat article to be created. Possibly both, since unarmed combat is a substantial topic in itself, that covers a wide variety of martial arts and martial arts techniques. -- The Anome (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This title has existed since 2003 and is extensively used in multiple articles across the project. I understand the distinction you are trying to draw. In modern military contexts, "hand-to-hand" includes any non-firearms techniques including bayonet, rifle butt, entrenching tool and, yes, bare-handed. You could theoretically write a stand-alone article just about those bare-handed techniques. But I must admit some skepticism about that proposal. First, most martial schools and traditions have a fairly smooth transition from bare-handed technique to techniques involving small tools and/or improvised aids. Second, even bare-handed combat is "armed" in a sense. As any good instructor will tell you, once trained you are never unarmed because your brain is your most important weapon. I wouldn't object if someone wants to try writing that stand-alone article but I also see no real confusion if we leave the redirect as is. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As directly above. If someone wants to write a stand alone article go ahead but there is also no problem keeping it as redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (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.

15 (song)[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. wbm1058 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 (song) → Fifteen (song) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Propose retargeting to 15 (disambiguation)#Songs, because there are songs named "15" and not "Fifteen". SST flyer 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the hatnote at the target should be enough. ~~If required, we should disambiguate the target's title.~~ There is no need, this is the only one we have an article about, anyway, my vote is still keep. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've refined the hatnote at the target to the Songs section of the DAB and added a courtesy note per MOS:LINK2SECT. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the new hatnote solves the dab issue --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 8 April 2016 (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.

Work life[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 work-life balance. Most agree that work-life balance is the most plausible expectation of a reader searching "work life" and that work-life already redirects to work-life balance. Der yck C. 12:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work life → Employment (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

In addition to Employment, the phrase could refer to Career or Job just as easily. None of the pages use the phrase, but Career uses the word "lifework", and seems to use the word "life" more frequently than the other two. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps DAB it with those above and working life (→ Employment), shelf life, work-life balance (a weird phrase, as if work was death), working age (→ Legal working age), mean time between failures and so on. But probably unnecessary, we're not a thesaurus. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - our search engine does a fine job of listing articles in which this phrase or two words appear if someone were to type this. The current target is not really correct, and there's a big WP:XY problem as Si Trew demonstrates. Personally I see this as referring to a person's productive employment years, i.e. the time between getting one's first job and retirement. But there doesn't seem to be a perfect article for that. Plus all the other possible meanings. A dab page would be full of partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not necessarily as is. Not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine. That cannot replace the need for redirects. And I don't see the XY problem as serious or even significant in this case. The proposed targets are all related and sufficiently cross-linked that a reader following this redirect will quickly find their desired article regardless. That said, my intuitive expectation for the phrase "work life" was the concept of "work-life balance" so if we are going to retarget, I'd prefer that title. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine, bad redirects can hinder them if they do (per WP:RFD#D1), because an exact title match will from many search boxes automatically go through the redirect rather than enumerating the search results; one has to go to Special:Search to stop that (or perhaps there are other ways I am unaware of). I don't suggest deletion simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because I want readers to get where they want to go smoothly; sometimes it's better to list search results.

A rather garbled sentence fragment at Employment, "maintaining a balance with the employee and creating social equity that benefits the worker so that he/she can fund and enjoy healthy living; proves to be a continuous revolving issue in westernized societies[ref]", is the nearest it comes to naming work-life balance, let alone linking to it. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we also have work-life -> work-life balance, which perhaps confuses things further (different targets based only on a change in punctuation). There is also an article about the work-life interface which has a section on "Work-life balance" but nothing in it apart from {{main}} link to it. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Work–life balance. Bit of a partial-title match, but if I heard the phrase, that's what I'd assume was meant. See work life -wikipedia, which is mostly about WLB and some proper-noun usages. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2016 (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.

Crişeni/version 2[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. Der yck C. 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crişeni/version 2 → Crişeni, Romania (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Please see the following discussions/pages:

...and even the majority of User:Steel1943/CSD log#April 2016. As seen at the aforementioned links, deletion of such "version #" redirects has been deemed uncontroversial by multiple administrators and/or uncontested by the community, as long as the edit history has been moved elsewhere. However, the deletion of this redirect uncontroversially was contested by a patrolling administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Steel notes, I was just going through CAT:CSD. This title has existed for six years; while of course we don't need to worry about the page history, we still have the issue of deleting a harmless-and-old redirect. There's no good reason to create linkrot here. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This redirect fails WP:RFD#D2 as misleading since readers would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what a "version 2" is and how it has anything to do with the redirect's target; is the subject of the article a "version 2"? Is the town/city referenced in this redirect the second version of the city? Also, the redirect clearly fails WP:RFD#D5. So, no, this redirect is not harmless. Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel and Nyttend. There is nothing confusing about a "version 2" artifact remaining in the project's history. WP:RFD#D5 is also patently inapplicable. "Crişeni-something" to "Crişeni-something else" is nothing like "Apples" to "Oranges". Rossami (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is misleading and confusing (the original article was created to get around something I think) and the fear of linkrot is not viable. The very few links to this redirect were created because of this recent discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of these pointless "version 2" redirects makes it all but impossible for someone searching for a real "version 2." Since the history has been dealt with, there's no reason to keep it around as it's not a search term and there's potential for harm. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These titles will only lead to confusion and clutter. Because there are no history issues to worry about, deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2016 (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.

Embattling[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, keep, delete, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embattling → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Embattled → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Embattles → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Embattle → USS Embattle (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neelix redirects that make no sense to me. I think of embattled more like this: 1. Prepared or fortified for battle or engaged in battle: embattled troops; an embattled city. 2. Beset with attackers, criticism, or controversy: an embattled legislative minority. Actual fortifications is not even a correct meaning. I've included the root word Embattle as it targets a ship and the ship is not a suitable retarget candidate for the others. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Embattle" to USS Embattle since we have a topic for ships called "Embattle". A hatnote at the ship article can link to Wiktionary wikt:embattle. No idea what to do with the other ones. Besiege/Siege, Under attack, Order of battle, fortify, etc -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Embattle". Retarget the others to Battle. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Embattled per WP:RFD#K5 useful, it has over 200 incoming links and most of them, if not all, are used about buildings (particularly churches and castles), i.e. for part of the structure that forms or resembles a battlement. Term is explained at the target. I've hatnoted to embattled (heraldry), and marked that as {{r to section}} (which it is, in Line (heraldry)). Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embattles and Embattling as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.

"Embattling" seems not used in the wild to mean the thing so embattled (like skirting or coving), and WP:NOTDIC for the two 18th-century references I found for its use as a present participle.

I found two journal titles, A research based on adaptive genetic algorithm optimal embattling method, apparently, doi:10.1109/ICIS.2014.6912105, and A Fast Method for Embattling Optimization of Ground-Based Radar Surveillance Network, but these may be a bad translation/neologism (reologism?), the authors of both papers look to be from China. We we don't have anything about optimal embattling but it seems to concern the "virtual battleground" or "virtual battlefield" (in military technology) or whatever they call it these days, the strategic planning of the real battlefield using (remote) computer assistance. There might be a topic or subtopic for that but I can't find it. The stub virtual battlefield has a short para about its real-world use in the military before going on to discuss video game simulators.

It is the method that is fast and the embattling that is optimal, so there's no tautology there. It could equally apply to the simulated battlefield, but there's no mention of it there. Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Embattle" and "Embattled", delete "Embattling" and "Embattles". The first is the ship name, the second is an architectural term-of-art. The other two appear to be more Neelix nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ship name should be deleted, I only included it for comparision purposes. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:BLUELOCK[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 Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. Der yck C. 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLUELOCK → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could now equally point to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection (a darker blue lock). It's been around since 2010, but has under 20 incoming links. We could replace occurrences with the more common WP:SALT shortcut and eliminate it, or do something else. What should be done? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: It's worth noting that the creation of this redirect predates the institution of Arb 30/500 protection by several years. There's not really any need to delete this, as there is at least one acceptable target and it doesn't violate policy. It should either a) be kept as is, with another redirect (such as WP:NAVYLOCK or WP:INDIGOLOCK assigned to the new protection), b) retargeted to the new protection level, and something else (WP:SKYLOCK assigned to creation-protection) or c) made a disambiguation page. I'm inclined to say keep as is. p b p 01:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I said, its been around since 2010. My idea above was just what came to mind for me, I don't necessarily think it needs to be deleted, hence the We could and the question What should be done? In my opinion, the problem with keeping it as is, is that it is now ambiguous (WP:XY).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection per nom. Currently, Wikipedia:BLUELOCK has less than 50 incoming links that could be easily fixed before this retarget happens. Also, on a related note, I have created WP:SKYBLUELOCK to target the nominate redirect's current target; this redirect matches the name of the file used for represent the lock for creation protection: File:Padlock-skyblue.svg. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - To Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and correct the existing links to the creation protection section. Making this protection a darker blue was an unfortunate choice. I don't think the redirects to WP:SALT are of much use anyway, since the [sky ]blue lock could only ever appear on pages that cannot be created, so nobody ever sees it. Unless admins can see it, I don't know that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection – Ivanvector has a good point: the sky blue lock is never actually shown on the pages it applies to, and when discussing the protection level, the WP:SALT shortcut is overwhelmingly preferred. Retargeting to the 30/500 makes sense, since we actually see a blue lock now. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support to retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection as it uses file File:Padlock-blue.svg. Eye snore 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - To Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection - If no ever sees the blue lock then we're not really confusing anyway, Makes sense to retarget imho. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget To Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection, and replace this with WP:SKYBLUELOCK. Peter Sam Fan 14:31, 12 April 2016 (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.