Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 24, 2016.

Canon Sinuum[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 target over redirect. Deryck C. 04:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Schwilgue says that "Canon Sinuum" is ambiguous, this redirect should not be here per WP:XY. There are three options: either the target article can be moved back as a primary topic and an article about another "Canon Sinuum" can be created, this redirect can be turned into a disambiguation page with another "Canon Sinuum" article created, or this redirect can be turned into a primary topic article about another "Canon Sinuum". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the target article over the redirect unless we have coverage on another notable topic of this name. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the target article over the redirect. I cannot see that any ambiguities have yet to crystalised in our wikispace. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 02:09, 26 March 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.

Hulless Oatis[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 04:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible typo. Presumably "Hullless Oat is" was intended. Also note the redirect is missing an "l" (easier to see if it's hyphenated as "hull-less oat") Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 24 March 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.

Monuments destroyed by war[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 List of destroyed heritage. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This unused (0.08 average daily views) redirect is counterintuitive as it targets a broader topic to a much narrower one—the equivalent of redirecting Wars to List of wars involving Iraq, for example. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target article is clearly too narrow for the term. Is the proposed alternative too broad?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the proposed alternative is too broad, and any list of structures destroyed "by war" is too open to debate about its contents (would it include structures purposefully demolished for security reasons, for example? Would they have to be "official" wars?) Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of destroyed heritage. Is the proposed alternative too broad? No. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of destroyed heritage. The current redirect moves from general to specific. Faizan (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas retargeting it thus moves from specific to general, but in my view, too general to be able to find the specific within it. Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 1 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.

Sufferance[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. Deryck C. 04:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Neelix redirected, nominated for speedy but denied. Still should be deleted, since sufferance and endurance aren't really the same thing, and never have been. The only reference to this word that is actually a link is in the article Seven virtues, where it is a synonym for patience, a completely different concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense though the words are synonyms, they are different concepts.

suf·fer·ance noun 1.absence of objection rather than genuine approval; toleration. "Charles was only here on sufferance" 2.archaic the suffering or undergoing of something bad or unpleasant

en·dur·ance noun 1. the fact or power of enduring an unpleasant or difficult process or situation without giving way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2016‎

Comment: Thank you to Oiyarbepsy for notifying me. I declined the speedy as there were incoming links and also because I noted that 'sufferance' is mentioned in the Endurance article as a related term and that Wikitionary (linked in the Endurance article) describe sufferance, among other things, as an archaic meaning of endurance. On that basis, I felt it better for a discussion to be had. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:08, 24 March 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.

Mélaleuca linariifolia[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. Deryck C. 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is the accent intended to indicate pronunciation? Scientific names don't contain accents. Nobody is likely to search for a term that contains a character that is difficult to produce on a standard keyboard. Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target.
I don't know what you mean by "standard keyboard", but on my laptop's US keyboard, on which I use Windows US International layout, I type diacritical marks rather a lot as the apostrophe and quote keys act as compose keys – although I'd be unlikely to for this. And AltGr+E produces it on many standard keyboard layouts: British layouts, for example.
But in any case, the search engine ignores diacritical marks except when two or more topics differ only by them. Si Trew (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Simply because it was required once. 3700-3709. Its kind of ridiculous when one element of the project is systematically deleting redirects without reference to that that element of the project that is systematically creating them. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. It's a stretch to say it was ever "required" given that WikiProject Red Link Recovery created it based on some type of data dump or report. We are not bound by the fact that someone at one time inserted what amounts to an implausible typo in an article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the diff above linked by User:Bosley John Bosley is for something completely different, Ménétries. The mention is farther down in the report, at section 3700 - 3709. Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had noticed, but thank you for providing the correct link. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't meant specifically in reply to you, sorry; outdenting. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 27 March 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.

Rock lobseter[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. The rough consensus is that this misspelling is so far-fetched as to be impossible. Deryck C. 04:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. I propose deletion.

Note that if consensus is to keep, this should regardless probably be retargeted to Spiny lobster, to which rock lobster points. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:24, 24 March 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.

Etherium[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. Deryck C. 05:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people searching for Etherium will probably be looking for a video game by that name, not a public blockchain platform called Ethereum. Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? We don't have an article for the video game (that I can find, anyway). If we did, we could just move it over and hatnote. In the meantime, without prejudice, I've tagged it as {{R from misspelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thought came after another user commented on the Ethereum talk page that Etherium shouldn't redirect there. I googled "Etherium" and most of the first page results are about the game that's developed by Tindalos Interactive. Searching "Etherium" on Google News, on the other hand, does give support to the idea that Etherium is a misspelling of Ethereum, at least in the blogosphere. I guess it's OK not to change the redirect as long as there isn't an article about either the game or the company that develops it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 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.

NO NAME[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 No Name. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Note: has history. SSTflyer 12:00, 24 March 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.

DellenDirecto[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) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No relation with the Spanish language. SSTflyer 09:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think that WP:RFOREIGN applies here, but delete per WP:R#DELETE #8. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Not Spanish (or any other Latinate language) as far as I can tell (I tried variations such as "Dell en directo", "Dell'en directo", and so on). We don't have Dell Direct or similar. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 26 March 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.

Ultimate Boot CD[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 deleted as redirect to a PROD=deleted page. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same product, despite the name (see [1]) I notice that this was an article before, but it was better to delete it rather to redirect it into something unrelated. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:03, 24 March 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.

Marcus the Wise[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) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that anyone ever called him this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I couldn't find anything. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 26 March 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.

Progressive conservatism[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 Progressive Conservative. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these really synonyms? "Progressive conservatism" probably sounds like an oxymoron to most, but other pages like Red Tory make me think there's a concept here. If it's synonymous with compassionate conservatism, it should probably be mentioned there. BDD (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget maybe to Progressive Conservative Party dab page, as the leading proponents of self-styled progressive conservatism (but really just the outcome of an opportunistic scheme to bolster the failing Conservative Party by poaching the Progressive Premier of Manitoba) for the better part of a century. Anyway, in Canada "progressive conservatism" refers to whatever the parties listed on that dab page are up to, and elsewhere I suspect it's political gobbledygook. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Tory as the strain of conservatism tempered by progressivism is the mark of Red Tories. Or retarget to Progressive Conservative or Progressive Conservative Party as the adjectival form. It should NOT target compassionate conservative ; it can become a disambiguation page between the three. I prefer "Red Tory", with hatnotes to the other two. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Progressive Conservative since that disambiguation page mentions not just the general ideology of being a "Red Tory" but also the political parties in various places CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab as it can be ambiguous. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Champion: Two dabs have been suggested: Progressive Conservative Party and Progressive Conservative. Could you please specify which one you prefer? -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 24 March 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.

Class not registered[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) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:21, 24 March 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:Infobox, WP:INFOBOX, etc.[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 all to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and its associated talkpage. Deryck C. 04:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and its talk page, respectively. People expect "Wikipedia:Common_wikijargon_here" titles and "WP:COMMON_WIKIJARGON_HERE" shortcuts to go to the guideline (or policy, or major essay if neither) page that defines the topic and how it's done here, not to a wikiproject page. The standard-ish naming convention for wikiproject shortcuts that need to disambiguate from guidance pages is WP:WPFOO, so WP:WPINFOBOX is probably what the wikiproject should advertise as its shortcut (and it's talk page is already using the irregular "WT:INFOWATCH" for some reason, but whatever). People are especially likely to try WP:Infobox or WP:INFOBOX (or the plural versions) for the infobox guideline, not knowing it's an MOS page in particular (which already has the WP:INFOBOXES shortcut, and MOS:INFOBOX, MOS:INFOBOXES as well).
[Yes, the wikiproject has been notified of the discussion. No, this is not some "anti-infobox" thing; I've created several and work on many frequently, and defend their inclusion in articles. No, this isn't some "anti-wikiproject" thing; I've started many, and am drafting two more, on the English language, and domestic animal breeds, and I'm in quite a number of them.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the singular ones, Keep the plural onesall.changed Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Hatnote as necessary. It's unfortunate that WikiProjects and Wikipedia share a namespace. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to the MOS page, and add a hatnote there pointing to the WikiProject. Project guidelines trump WikiProject content, and the guideline receives about 3.5 times more views than the WikiProject page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Retarget all and add a hatnote. I actually just got bit by this right now. While MOS:INFOBOX works, I don't always remember if something is a policy or part of the manual of style. The MOS page is much more used and expected than the WikiProject so that should be the target. (I was actually looking for Help:Infobox; whoops...) Extra care should be taken to not break incoming links. Opencooper (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the MOS page - should be the main target and as per opencooper, used much more and would be the expected target. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to the MOS page. Eman235/talk 18:42, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_24&oldid=1142901854"