Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2016.

Nuffield Professor of Economics[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's likely that an article on the office would be an improvement, however. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate to redirect from the name of a changeable office to the current holder. Other entries in List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Oxford have their own articles. LukeSurl t c 15:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - doesn't seem to be an office of sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article, in which case it makes sense for it to be a redirect to the current officeholder rather than WP:REDLINK-deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I actually picked a professorship at random from List of professorships at the University of Oxford and to my surprise it is a featured list: Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture. From there, I've noticed that most of these "articles" are actually lists of people who held the position. However, the problem I'm having with this one is that I can't find anyone else who has been a "Nuffield Professor of Economics." My search overwhelmingly brings up Keane. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is he the first to hold the position, perhaps? --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would assume, but it'd be nice to find some kind of verification of that... I did find this post from 2011. I skimmed through it, but didn't see any references to a previous holder. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read it all quickly. Not explicit but some wording like 'will be...' rather then 'is' suggests this was a new position. It is also a tenure until retirement position so we should not expect the list of holders to grow quickly. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as he holds the office, he is the best target. If a second person gains the office we can turn to a DAB which might eventually grow into a list. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 21 January 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.

Old harp singing[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 Sacred Harp. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the redirect and its target is unclear. The target article does not mention the redirect in its context. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sacred Harp. Sacred Harp is a style of southern American Christian music based historically on a tunebook of the same name which was written in shape notation. Both "old harp singing" and "sacred harp singing" refer unambiguously to that style of music. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. Nice find. Si Trew (talk) 02:53, 22 January 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.

Love team[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) 17:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the article. Possibly misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - seems to be a synonym: [1] based on headline, I can't actually get it to load. There's also Itchyworms, a band with a single called Loveteam. I don't think that's ripe for a retarget though, it's pretty obscure. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May not be mentioned in the article yet, but this is a Philippine English variant of the term. [2]. A recent example of a "love team" or supercouple is Aldub.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' yep this is our version of supercouple. It's a plausible synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 22 January 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 supercouples[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 List of supercouples over the redirect, and retarget List of Supercouples there. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY and maybe WP:REDLINK These redirects could lead the reader to think that they will find a list of real-life supercouples, which the target article does not do, especially since the word "fictional" is in their target's title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was alerted about this on my talk page, though that was not needed since List of supercouples and List of Supercouples are on my watchlist. I don't care what you do with the redirects. I will note, however, that the term supercouple concerns fictional characters far more than it concerns real-life people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-ish - actually I think it would be better off if the "fictional" list were moved over the redirect, so that the list lived at list of supercouples. The main article supercouple details the concept, which is applied equally to fictional and real-life couples, and goes on to discussions and examples of both. I don't think there's any reason for this list to exclude real people. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip it List of supercouples should be the article which would cover both real life and fictional couples. The other variations should point at it. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip it, as above. Si Trew (talk) 02:55, 22 January 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.

Pedro de Alcântara Francisco António João Carlos Xavier de Paula Miguel Rafael Joaquim José Gonzaga Pascoal Cipriano Serafim[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 and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He did, indeed, have all these names, however I cannot find any plausible use for these redirects: nobody would search for him like this or try to link to such a series of names. The Traditionalist (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix makes a good point, so I'm changing mine to a split !vote as well. Delete the partially translated second redirect, es muy implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one will ever use this in any way. Goes against WP:USEFUL Legacypac (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a split !vote:
  • Keep the native version, {{R from full name}}.
  • Delete the English translation. He's rarely known as "Peter I" in English, and translating every single one of those names into English seems to be original research, especially since I can't find a source for it outside of wiki mirrors and it's not mentioned in the article anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first one since it is the full name and Delete the second one as vague translation per Tavix--Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 22 January 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.

Existentialisation[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) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A word that is exceedingly rare. I could find no definition for the word.. A couple uses in books - theology [3] math [4] and an education paper [5] but it's excedingly rare. Several of the top results are a place you can print scraped Wikipedia content on a pillow. Google does not recognize the word. It appears to be used in french, but again very rarely, like a few hundred times on Google. Nearly every instance of use on the internet appears to come from this redirect - which is bad because bad redirects mess up the web spreading stupidity across the web. I can't see how this is a useful redirect as there is no proof it is related to the target or any specific field of study and I can't even define the word. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible synonym. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all) - best I can guess, adding -isation to this would mean the act of applying existentialism to some other thing. I don't know how such an act would be performed, and this article does not help me learn about it at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC) edited after more redirects added Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC and Ivanvector. As the first American to comment, it's fitting that I be the one to add the American Oxford variant. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We commonly use the zeds in Canada too. Just sayin'. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just playing off the notion that "-ize" is often incorrectly called the "American" spelling (hopefully the link made that clear?). -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added the plural versions which are even more very unlikely search terms (the first plural gets 172 total Google hits, most of which are copied from Wikipedia). I presume the voters above would also support deleting these too. [6] Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more existential introduction, as defined in Existential quantification#Rules of Inference, which links (piped) to List_of_rules_of_inference#Rules_of_classical_predicate_calculus, where it is called both Existential generalization, an article, and Existential introduction, a redirect to that article. In any case, it is not a question of a variable (or value for it) existing but that just naming a quantifier; a bit like an uninitialized declaration (computer programming).
For example, it is perfectly well-formed to predicate that "there exists some X in D such that X does not equal X" but in most domains of discourse (D) there would be no value which satisfies this predicate (but, say, in the domain of IEEE-574 floating point numbers there is a set of values NaN which satisfy this property.)
"Existentialisation" is also defined here pp.50 et. seq. in some set-theoretical formalisation of automata, not in predicate calculus (as far as I can see). I have no idea what it means in this sense. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that it has been many years since I have taken classes in metalogic and discrete mathematics, so I apologize if my definition of "existentialization" was clumsy or inaccurate. That said, I still maintain that existential quantification is the best target for this term because it refers to the general process of utilizing an existential quantifier, while an existential introduction refers to the specific process of utilizing existential quantification with respect to a proposition within a syllogism. The term may also be used in other disciplines, though I am only familiar with the application of the term within metalogic and discrete mathematics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:05, 22 January 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.

Protestantism in Jan Mayen[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) 15:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mayen has a population of 18 people. It's safe to say that there isn't much that can be said about "Protestantism in Jan Mayen" except whether it exists or not. The article, rightly so, doesn't mention a thing about Protestantism or even religion there. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 20 January 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.

Brangelina[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 Avalanche Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 January 2016‎

Current redirects to Supercouple#Celebrity, I suggest recreating the page as a disambiguation page. I'm not entirely sure this what people searching for "Brangelina" are looking for. Prisencolin (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned there, and absent a better suggestion. This suffers from WP:XY: we can't redirect to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but they are one of the examples listed at the current target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't we just set up a DAB page that goes to either person then? Like this.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current target serves as an excellent natural disambiguation, plus gives the reader an intro to the topic of the couple before they choose which individual they want to read more about, if that's what they're looking for. I like that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On some browsers, linking directly to a section does not work. Also, I feel like the current redirect is potentially confusing people. --Prisencolin (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which browsers? There's an open bug that makes section links go to the wrong section, but I wasn't aware of any that ignore sections altogether. At any rate, the info is still on the page. I feel like this should be an article, but it was already deleted at AfD, so we're kind of stuck here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brangelina, which wasn't even a year ago. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ivanvector and Tavix. People are looking for information on the couple when they search "Brangelina"; the section in the Supercouple article suffices for that. If readers are looking for the individual people, they will go to those articles (Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reiterate and expand on my point, if you look up "brangelina" on google, the results you get are about Jolie and Pitt, and not on the abstract concept of "supercouples". WP:POFR--Prisencolin (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't disambiguate Wp:XY titles, because a reader who enters one of those titles (or an editor who links to them) is looking for information about the intersection of those two topics, not just one or the other. If the intersection is notable we write an article, whereas if the intersection is non-notable but mentioned in a subsection of neither the X nor the Y article (like here) we point to that subsection. (And if the intersection is not mentioned anywhere we delete it in order to avoid the misleading impression that we have any information to offer about the intersection, but that's not the case here.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:33, 21 January 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_January_20&oldid=1037883111"