Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 4, 2016.

Did you know[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 accept disambiguation page. Moving to "Did You Know" is possible and can be done boldly. Deryck C. 14:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect points to a disambiguation page that is primarily about other things with the abbreviation DYK and has no actual entries (not counting the {{selfref}} hatnote and the See also section) that have a title anything like Did you know. Pppery (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Previous outcome for this RfD was disambiguate, which is what both DYK and Did you know (disambiguation) point to, with the aforementioned hatnote. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 20:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we restore a disambiguation, I think either the last non-redirect version of this title, or combining that with the disambiguation at Do You Know would be the better than DYK. However, I don't think that is best as the Wikipedia "Did you know" section of the main page is by far the primary topic on Wikipedia for this phrase so we should retarget to take people directly where they want to go. The best target I think is Template:Did you know#Current hooks which is where the main page section is transcluded from and also contains links to the project space pages that people may be looking for as well and could take a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough retarget was my first thought but then I changed it to keep when I read the old RfD. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 20:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the old RfD first too, but still think that retargetting is best. There are plenty of partial title matches on en.wp, but nothing comes close to being a primary topic other than Wikipedia's DYK feature. My suggested target is the most reader-facing place we can point to other than the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(re Thryduulf's keep vote) If this is retargeted to something involving the Did you know ... section of the main page (which I oppose), the proper think would be to add an anchor and retarget this to the main page itself, as the rest of Template:did you know (excluding the Current hooks' section) is not reader-facing content. Pppery (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's far more reader oriented than Template talk:Did you know which is linked directly from the main page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) . 20:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: ... linked with the name Nominate an article - that link does not seem to be something a reader would want to click. Also, isn't that comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Pppery (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Did you know" is a common English phrase and Wikipedia's usage likely isn't the most prominent usage of the term. I've got a feeling that a stub can be created on the concept, and that would solve this problem. I'm having problems finding sources though, but there's got to be some out there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've resurrected a disambiguation and added entries under the redirect, although it should be moved to Did You Know. Would this satisfy everyone? -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with that dabpage too. Pppery (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tavix's DAB page. DAB page shows that we have encyclopedic content related to this term, so that should take precedence over project pages, for which the selfref hatnote is enough. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 13 August 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.

Different between reflex action and voluntary action[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. Editors arguing for deletion have pointed out that this redirect suffers from WP:XY and has an awkward title. Although some editors pointed out a low but significant hit rate for the redirect, most other editors aren't convinced that would be sufficient reason to keep the redirect. Deryck C. 14:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't see this being useful due to the awkward and lengthy title. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this poses an WP:XY issue between Reflex and voluntary action. The current target doesn't really describe what the difference (assuming that's what the author of this redirect meant) between them is, simply stating that a reflex action is involuntary. The target doesn't mention "voluntary action" in the prose, one would have to go to the see also to find the phrase used. To actually figure out what the difference is, one would also have to go to the voluntary action is and do the comparison for themselves. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the stats clearly show that contrary to your speculation, real people are regularly using this redirect. Presumably this is linked from somewhere off-site or is close enough to a common search term for the search engines to show to people. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Totals: 12 (0/day)". Hmm, looks like I was correct; an average of 0 people per day view this page (and yes, 0 per day would be implausible). Instead of presuming, I challenge you to find a non-wiki mirror that uses this search term. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 12 people is a very long way above 0, and I don't car what other sources use the term I care that people are using it on Wikipedia and that the current target is the one they are most likely to be looking for when they do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 is irrelevant, useless number. Rates are what actually matter. If it was 12 people per day, yes, you have a point. But the rate is 0/day in this case, which is means that this is NOT a plausible redirect. I don't think you have a case that this is the most likely article either, but I digress. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but you will never get me to accept that 12 people are "irrelevant" and is far more than view some other redirects that you are likely to have no problem with. The rate is irrelevant. What we have here is a redirect with a clear target that is used by real people, is not in the way of anything, is not harmful and will bring no benefits if deleted while inconvenicing the people who use it - a clear case for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, you can make stats anything you want them to be. That's the fallacy of page view stats. That's why we should use common sense, and not "someone used this, so it must be useful!" Show me evidence of someone actually using this phrase elsewhere and evidence that it should refer to "reflex" and then we can talk. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence that 12 people at least have used this redirect. The target article explains the difference people using this redirect are looking for, and I can find no other target that is better. If you want to delete the redirect it is up to you to show that there will be a benefit to Wikipedia from doing so, you have so far failed to offer any reason that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is not evidence that these 12 people over three months (aka 0/day) have found what they're looking for. With voluntary action just as plausible of a target, therein lies a WP:XY problem. You have stated that this is the most plausible target, but I'm not seeing why that is the case. It is harmful to confuse and mislead our readers, which is what this redirect does, with awkward syntax as well. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pppery (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while the 0.1333 people who use the redirect daily is a plausible argument for keeping the redirect, despite its length, we nevertheless have no clue if the redirect's users are going where they intended to go, and this should be deleted due to the WP:XY problems.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general it's more helpful to switch the pageview tool's timeline from the earliest possible 1 July 2015 to the day before the RfD opens, to get a larger sample and one that's not affected by an influx of RfD attention. Doing so for this would yield 50 page views over 13 months, or just under one person a week. In this case, despite the awkward name, it does get use.
It's not really an XY issue because voluntary action is a psychological concept, not a biological one. Furthermore, the first line in the lede for reflex is "A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus" which does explain the difference between voluntary actions and reflex. The next sentence further differentiates by making it clear that the scientific use of reflex (entirely involuntary) is different from the non-technical use of the term (having good (voluntary) reflexes). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what time period you use, the fallacy of page view stats still exist: you can make them out to be whatever you want them to be. Even using your time period, the tool still says 0/day which is a statistically insignificant rate. Furthermore, simply defining what reflex action is doesn't erase the XY dilemma, it's great that our readers would understand exactly what reflex action is, but that doesn't explicitly explain how it's "different between" voluntary action. It's something that has to be inferred via previous knowledge or by going to the other article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree on the threshold for WP:R#K5. I don't think XY applies here because it is explaining the difference, because reflex action is the biological antithesis of voluntary action, so the entire article (and certainly the lede) can be seen as differentiating it from voluntary action. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:XY does not apply here. XY is for when people are looking for X and Y when the two topics are not covered, or suitable to be covered, in a single article. What people using this redirect are looking for is the difference between X and Y, which is covered at the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 15 August 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.

The Washington Times Foundation[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times foundation from what I can see is not the same as News World Communications. The foundation seems to be defunct now, and the Times is no longer owned by News World Communications. The link should be deleted. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Washington Times Foundation is still going, but it isn't notable enough for its own article, and there's no clear place to target it as a redirect. Deleting (making it a redlink) would help prevent edits like this, where people assume it's the same as The Washington Times. — Gorthian (talk) 20:14, 8 August 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.

Mauritian gerbil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Mauritian gerbil

꾼노캐비넽[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. Discussion on creating scripts to find these kinds of foreign redirects has been dead for more than a day and can continue elsewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple WP:RFOREIGN redirects to targets that have no affinity with this language. They were the only creations of Expressionismasw (talk · contribs). -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing Korean about the targets, and virtually no hits on either redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @210.6.254.106:, could you compile a list of these accounts, or else let me know how to do so, so that we can check over all of those redirects as well? Tazerdadog (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tazerdadog: I've begun doing what I can to track some down. It's not easy; most of them only made one or two edits each. If anyone has ideas about how to find them, I'm all ears, too. (BTW, you might want to add {{talkback}} to 210.6.254.106's talk page; pings don't work for plain IP accounts.) — Gorthian (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to get a list of all redirects starting with letters in a certain range (e.g. Hangul Syllables)? I could write a script to filter that list based on some features that appear a lot in these bizarre mistranscriptions and very rarely in real Korean words (e.g. kieuk or tieut at the end of a syllable block), and then manually filter out the false positives. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is. I don't know how, but if you start looking at Wikipedia:Database queries you should find either the answer or the right place to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use Category:Redirects from Korean-language terms to see if you spot any nonsense words. — Gorthian (talk) 21:27, 9 August 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.

C programming language, criticism[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, default to keep. Editors arguing for deletion pointed out that there's no longer a dedicated section in C (programming language) on criticism, whereas editors arguing for keep pointed towards the number of hits and the age of these redirects. It was also pointed out that "C" is potentially ambiguous but most editors weren't concerned. Deryck C. 13:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section called "Criticism" in this article and there is no standalone article for criticism of C to retarget this to. Delete. GSMR (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge doesn't mean something can never ever be deleted. How likely is it that someone will want to restore the critical content? WP:CRIT recommends against Criticism sections, though there are certainly plenty of them out there. Do other articles on programming languages have them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: (re the reslisting comment) the content wasn't deleted but spread around the article to give balanced treatment of the various features so the page history does need to be kept somewhere for attribution purposes (see WP:MAD). Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I should've read your comment more carefully. Sounds like we need to keep the one with history, namely Criticism of C. Whether the other one is worth keeping seems an open question. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read my last sentence again, "That history is almost all at Criticism of the C programming language but as the page moves predate the old and new titles being stored in the edit history of both, we do need to keep all the edit history around somewhere." Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what would be lost if the other were deleted. Nothing in the history of "Criticism of C" refers to "C programming language, criticism", and "Criticism of the C programming language" isn't being discussed for action here. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 5 August 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.

Dolphin Tale 2: The Ride Home[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just incorrect. The sequel to Dolphin Tale is not subtitled "The Ride Home" and there's no mention of a possible subtitle at either article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 4 August 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.

Ishq (1991 film)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is an unambiguous title and should be a red link. Nick Number (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with your reasoning. — Gorthian (talk) 00:03, 10 August 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.

Librarianship and human rights[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 move the article over the redirect and attempt to globalise. The latter is not within the scope of a closing admin's job (and I personally lack the knowledge to do it in an editorial capacity) so it is left as a task for others. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INUSA problem. There's notable things to say about librarian and human rights outside of the US. BDD (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to create redlink. Seemed like WP:XY at first, but given that the American version is fairly detailed and sourced, it might be worth making a more general one. Also there's a book [1] by Toni Samek that could be notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP - specifically #3 and #7. Deleting the redirect inhibits readers from accessing what information we have on librarianship and human rights (albeit with a USA focus), and prevents unregistered users from creating a general article on that topic. What this nomination points out is that Template:Globalize (wording "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.") does not take into account situations where a topic may have both a regional and an international aspect. I'll make an adjustment to it shortly, so it points out that folks can also start a new article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Librarianship and human rights in the United States article now has a Globalize hatnote advising readers that "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate." SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: That makes no sense. The title is "...in the United States". — Gorthian (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally called Librarianship and human rights. In March 2012 I moved the title to Librarianship and human rights in the United States as that was more appropriate for the content, leaving a redirect from the original title. We now have a discussion in which it is proposed to delete the redirect in order to create a redlink in order to allow a general or global article on librarianship and human rights to be created, yet this is against best practise and our own guidelines (see WP:R#KEEP and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#With_possibilities) as the redirect points to the only existing article on Wikipedia on librarianship and human rights, indeed, the redirect was the original name of the article. The problem with the article is that it is focused on Librarianship and human rights in the United States rather than librarianship and human rights in general or globally. There are two main ways to solve that problem - we either create a new global article on librarianship and human rights or we amend the current article so that it is more global, and then return it to its original title. The globalize tag alerts readers and editors of these possibilities (amend existing or create new), and also the option of discussing the matter further. This makes more sense than deleting a redirect which provides 1/4 of the article's readership, so introducing some frustration for those readers, and which offers no advice or assistance to users as to how to solve the problem, and puts a barrier in the way of users who have not registered and become auto-confirmed. If the redirect were, say, Librarianship and children, then deleting or redirecting it would make makes, as the article has little directly to say about that topic, but as the article contains information on the core of the topic, then it makes sense to keep it, as per our guidelines, but the problem then is that those landing on the article are confronted with a regional focus they may not be expecting, and so a hatnote explaining that, and giving some advice on how to proceed, is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the article per SilkTork. 1 person a day is using this redirect, and this is the only article we have. Renaming the page would make more sense than deleting the redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this. That's another INUSA remedy. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and attempt to globalize per SilkTork. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 15 August 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.

Our Name Is Adam[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since the film is still in development, things like the lead actor and the director can easily change, so it's not a good idea to redirect to these people. There's no mention at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it Cruise's movie project (producer, writer, etc.)? That would be the only reason to keep it around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it gets made. There's no mention anywhere on Wikipedia, and nothing I can find on the web newer than 2012, when the initial announcement was made. @AngusWOOF: No, Cruise is (maybe) just acting in it. — Gorthian (talk) 17:18, 11 August 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.

The Rut (film)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL since the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and all of 29 hits between the two pages over the last 13 months. — Gorthian (talk) 03:19, 6 August 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.

Memoirs of a Sikh Soldier (film)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this film at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. IMDb says the status of this film is "unknown" so this is solidly in WP:CRYSTAL territory. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_4&oldid=1088110058"