Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 8, 2016.

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DP/SFV)[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 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. I'll also note that the more likely Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley is red. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:PD-Soviet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 18#Template:PD-Soviet

Appelsína[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 18#Appelsína

Raptor (rocket stage)[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) 01:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Rationale: this redirect causes confusion; there is not, and has never been, a "Raptor" rocket stage; just a rocket engine. One early news source got it wrong, and I created this redirect article back then, in 2012. I quickly MOVEd it to an engine-related title, and this incorrect redirect became a "Redirect from Move". N2e (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to support deletion as inaccurate. also, if you have typed "Raptor (rock" or something similar into the search bar, having multiple autocompletes is confusing. It is worth noting that this is a somewhat heavily trafficked redirect. There was a recent spike following Musk's IAC presentation in early September, so statistics are in flux. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The first reports were mostly rumors and assumptions. Following Musk's presentation, there is no doubt now that Raptor is a rocket engine family for separate stages. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BatteryIncluded, clarification question. Did you mean "rocket engine family" or "rocket family" in your previous comment? N2e (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rocket engine family. Edited as such now. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

OIT[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 OIT (disambiguation) over the redirect (c.f. WP:MALPLACED). -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should go to OIT (disambiguation) Atlantic306 (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Horſe[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) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks odd, searching this on google would not make a difference had I just searched "horse". Moreover, typing the letter to Wikipedia redirects me to "s" without the "redirected from". Anyways delete for this does not seem plausible. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For reasons mentioned in a 2015 similar discussion which resolved as keep, since long s is an ancient form of "s": Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_3#Happine.C5.BFs
As for "typing the letter to Wikipedia redirects me to "s" without the "redirected from"" that's because of technical limitations in the software. The real article for "ſ" is at long s.
  • "For technical reasons, "ſ" redirects here. For the archaic medial form of the letter 's', see long s."
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in keeping this as typing Liſt of operating syſtems, for example, will still redirect nevertheless, even though the redirect does not exist. This redirect has recieved exactly 0 hits within the last 90 days, deletion will not affect user's searches whatsoever. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C5%BFt_of_operating_sy%C5%BFtems I do not get a redirect. I get a blank page. When I use the search bar (with the term "Liſt of operating syſtems") it takes me not to the article itself but a list of search results. I use Mozilla Firefox as my web browser. I'm not sure if the different web browsers handle long s differently. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the link doesn't redirect, but entering it in the search bar and pressing Enter takes me to the appropriate page immeditely. Also using Firefox (50.0b2, on Windows 10). nyuszika7h (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's because long-S gets case-folded to regular old s for purposes of case-insensitive comparison, but in a case-sensitive comparison they are not treated as equivalent. So for a wikilink or URL, "ſ" (and regular old "s") are only equivalent to "S" if they appears at the beginning, e.g. ſpain (same as spain and Spain), but not Eſtonia (nor EStonia for that matter). And in the search box, "ſ" will bring up results which use "s" since the search box uses case-insensitive comparison.
(This is different from Unicode normalisation, which makes it impossible to input some characters in Wikipedia articles at all unless you use the &#xxxxx code, and the software treats them as equivalent in all positions. Don't know any Latin alphabet examples off the top of my head, but consider 成 vs. 成: two different codepoints, the latter can be substituted for the other anywhere in a link, e.g. Prince Cheng (成) vs. Prince Cheng (成). And if you try to input the latter directly when editing a Wikipedia page it'll automatically get converted to the former when you save it.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why would this ever be linked? Horse is a common word, and quoted text that uses Old English or whatever wouldn't have such a link. Also no description of the etymology of the word at the target article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment': Long s forms could be linked if old documents are quoted verbatim. Also Old English is sufficiently different to the point where it has its own Wikipedia. "Long s" appears much later in English history, around the 17th century. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But verbatim quotes should not have links in them... MOS:QUOTE#Linking, although there's some Horſeplay about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposed_revision:_links_within_quotes. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - To be glib, this appears to be both 'bad English' and 'valid English' at the same time. Such is our odd and complex language. I think that this could be somewhat helpful, while I'm not sure, and I lean to just keeping it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I pretty much agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. There may not be much use for this redirect, but maybe there is a use in rare circumstances, and redirects are cheap so might as well keep. 18:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This is probably the best example for the WP:COSTLY argument I've seen so far. Its use as a search term is eliminated since ſ and s can be used interchangeably when searching. Since the redirect exists, the maintenance burden of the redirect also exists, but the benefits are negliable. If that wasn't enough, I'm unconvinced this is a plausible search term to begin with. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and AngusWOOF. Pppery 20:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. No evidence has been presented that this would be a likely search term (e.g. being used as an example of the long "s" in textbooks, being one of the most common English words used in texts when the long "s" was popular, etc.). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WhisperToMe, can you speak to why you created this? I assume you didn't just go mass creating redirects with long Ss, nor, I would assume, would anyone here argue for systematic creation of such redirects. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible redirect. We don't create redirects for each obsolete spelling of any word. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Rosoft: Comment In many subject areas they do especially when consulting historical academic literature (for example there are multiple Chinese romanizations floating around - so not only Beijing, but also Peking, Peiping, etc.) - These former spellings are not always common knowledge, and it's important that if someone encounters an obsolete spelling in a source he/she would be able to input the spelling to see what it is in a modern context. In English language texts a newbie may look at a 1700s document and see "long s"s and not know what's happening, for example. While many typed-out historical documents don't show the long s, some do - This is equivalent to China-related editors meticulously redirecting old spellings to new ones WhisperToMe (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a task for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Our article on horse has no discussion of the word spelled with a long s, and rightly so. -- Tavix (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the scope of this RfD is just limited to "Horſe" or extremely common words in which confusion is less likely then I'm not so inclined to oppose (it's good to clarify what the scope is: As in will this affect all long s redirects, or only some of them, and if the latter, which ones?)
  • In many cases regarding "long s" words (in which the word/name/term is not so common) if one doesn't know what an old spelling corresponds to, you won't be able to properly/fully use the source and integrate its information into Wikipedia. If one doesn't know Beiping is just another way to say Beijing one won't be able to fully use a 1930s newspaper article describing the city (regardless of whether the article fully describes the etymology or not). If one dosn't know "Miſsouri" is just "Missouri" (that may seem obvious to a native English speaker, especially if it's on a map, but what about a non-native English speaker?) then it becomes more difficult to use a 1700s source. I believe it's Wikipedia's job to direct its readers to the right place.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, novel or obscure synonyms are to be deleted, and I've yet to see evidence that the spelling of horse with a long S was ever anything but that. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "long S" spelling was the standard way of doing it back in the 1700s. It was around the 1800s when "long S" fell out of favor (AFAIK at that time using "long S" shifted into being a sign of formality) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—not a likely search term. And Wikipedia is not trying to be Wiktionary with all obsolete forms of words through Old English, Middle English, etc. N2e (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Selena M. Gomez[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not commonly known as Selena M. Gomez; essentially for search that implies a disambiguation from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and ends up with a WP:SURPRISE that it is, indeed, singer Selena Gomez. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep But not incorrect. Unsuitable for a title, but fine here unless there was potential ambiguity. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My beef with that, and as you can tell I am trogging through many borderline ones with this, is that it implies to someone searching via a drop down that Selena M. Gomez is somehow a different person from Selena Gomez, i.e. that implicitly the M. acts as a disambiguator. I agree it is not techincally incorrect, but I think it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Were we not to have it, people would not have to make the choice of which Selena Gomez they wanted, only to find to their disappointment or at least WP:SURPRISE they were the same person. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some examples where she goes by Selena M. Gomez? Does she sign autographs with the initial? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Largetongue orchids[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. It has been demonstrated that these redirects are incorrect (thanks Plantdrew in particular), with a weak majority favouring deletion over keeping them as plausible mistakes. Deryck C. 11:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) Removed from User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#X1 by User:Tazerdadog at Neelix list,m without prejudice to RfD (according to edit summary). They're not called this with these forms of punctuation or capitalisation, the common name is the Large Tongue Orchid not the Large-Tongue Orchid or largetongue orchid or whatever, these are too far away. Delete all. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All. Reasonable spelling alternatives and search terms. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable {{R from incorrect spelling}}s that are not at the target and the search engine will find the article quite happily without them. Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - reasonable search terms. These seem more plausible than a common typo. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that there's significant difference between "Largetongue ___" and both "Large-tongue ___" as well as "Large tongue ___" in terms of helpfulness. The former is awkwardly worded and unlikely to be useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largetongue variants. The books do not combine these two words. A hyphen like "Large-tongue" is more likely. "Large tongue-orchid" shows up in books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it kinda makes sense to hyphenate it like that, but the SIA at tongue orchid has it as being a "large tongue-orchid" (and all other entries except "Cryptostylis hunteriana, Leafless Tongue Orchid" have it hyphenated as "tongue-orchid". Rather a confusion of hyphens all round.@Plantdrew: Do you remember from when you created the redirect tongue-orchid on 2 Feb 2016? I note Large tongue-orchid and caps variants are all red. Si Trew (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all "Large" modifies the phrase "tongue orchid". Related plants include the "leafless tongue orchid" and "Tartan tongue orchid". While it's plausible to think that "large tongue" might be an adjectival phrase absent any other context, "leafless tongue" is clearly nonsense. There's no reason to have redirects that group large+tongue together. Anybody who hears large+tongue+orchid as a spoken term is more likely to search for three separate words than to guess at throwing in hyphens and ramming words together. Anybody who sees large+tongue+orchid as a written phrase will likely search for it as they saw it written. Anybody who is writing about large+tongue+orchids will either follow another source or make their own informed decisions about what terms modify what. And it turns out that written sources do tie tongue+orchid together. Large tongue-orchid is a string that actually appears outside of Wikipedia, and it might be a useful redirect. However, Wikipedia's search now treats hyphens as spaces when no redirect with hyphens exists; anybody searching for Large tongue-orchid will get to the article via Large tongue orchid anyway. The two "Large-tongue" redirects are utterly useless as far as Wikipedia search is concerned; "Large tongue" redirects are functionally equivalent. Plantdrew (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I note that at the SIA, all but Cryptostylis hunteriana have a description with the hyphen; however, in the actual WP:FIRSTSENTENCEs of the articles, those under Serapias say "tongue-orchid", but those under Cryptostylis use "Tongue Orchid". I imagine we should change the SIA to reflect the usage in the articles? (On a minor, presumably uncontroversial point I refined your {{R from modification}} at tongue-orchid to {{R from other punctuation}}.)
I would have thought, were it indeed the tongue that were large, it would more likely be called a large-tongued orchid, but we don't seem to have (a common name of) any species, animal or vegetable, that starts "large-tongued". GBooks search gives me this from the index of Flora of South Australia and this from Australian bush flowers with the hyphen, although perhaps this in Victorian Orchids with Botanical and Vernacular Names is more satisfactory from an etymologist's point of view. So the hyphenated form does exist in the wild. That being said, as Plantdrew points out, simply deleting the hyphenated forms won't hurt a search at all.
Thus I stick with my original !vote at nomination to delete all. Without prejudice, I've tagged the pluralised forms as {{R from plural}} and all as {{R from common name}}, {{R from incorrect name}} in case we decide to keep any, though. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: by your own reasoning, why did you bother to make tongue-orchid, then? Do we need to remove the hyphens at the SIA and the names in the Serapias articles, or is "tongue-orchid" with the hyphen the "correct" common name for species in that genus? Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tongue-orchid" isn't strictly necessary (as the hyphens are bypassed in Wikipedia searches), but there are sources use that term (because "tongue" modifies "orchid" and "tongue" isn't itself modified by other adjectives). The tongue orchid SIA need some cleanup in how the names presented there, I'll get to it soon. Plantdrew (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Plantdrew. Thanks for your expertise as always. I'm gonna take Leafless-tongue orchid, Leaflesstongue orchid and plural variants via WP:X1, I'm not sure you knew they existed! I've added various {{R from other name}} etc for redirects to other tongue orchids at that SIA. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, removed from X1... listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_2#Leaflesstongue_orchids, xreffing to here. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even though I've made a 'split-decision' kind of vote already, I do want to emphasize that I'm pretty much fine with deleting all of these, even though I'm wary about the hyphen issue. Consider this a ranked preference vote from me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first two for sure. Very unlikely search terms. Neutral leaning delete on the others, thanks to Plantdrew's explanation, though keeping them and tagging them with {{R from incorrect name}} might be fine. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Plausible ways to space/hyphenate the term for those not intimately familiar with the naming convention. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew, this is nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_8&oldid=1088108475"