Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2016.

What is truth[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 dabify the first, retarget the second there. While neither "What is truth" nor "What is truth (disambiguation)" have significant history, I'll be preserving both. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest re-targeting to truth. The current target is unexpected and non-neutral. The nature of truth is one of the biggest, most important, and most fundamental topics in philosophy and logic (see the truth#Major theories). Indeed I found these redirects because that's what I was interested in reading about. Being sent to the John 18:38 article was a surprise. As somebody who is not Christian (as most of the world) it feels odd and annoying for the question "What is truth?" to be answered by sending me to the Gospel of John, which via 3:18 is known world-wide for sign-holding Christian proselytizers. The only thing that keeps this from being an open/shut case is that an argument could be made that the redirects to John 18:38 have some merit (see first paragraph). Overall, it's a matter of judgment. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS In the case of what is truth? the target was changed from truth to "John 18:38" by this edit in late 2007. No discussion was linked but I haven't ruled out the existence of a discussion somewhere. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a case of bold, revert, don't discuss. The redirect created at 09:55, 30 November 2005 was to the current target. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it a notable catchphrase, slogan, or book title as with The Plain Truth or You can't handle the truth? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"What Is Truth", the Johnny Cash song, is the primary topic for the proper name title. wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C. J. F. Williams wrote a book with this title, but we don't have an article on it. wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia search box is not like Jeopardy!. You don't search for topics by asking a question. Clearly this is a "notable catchphrase" of some sort, and note that most of the topics in Category:Catchphrases are redirects. John 18:38 adequately discusses this "catchphrase". – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Jeopardy analogy doesn't work. In Jeopardy you are already given the answer and you give the question. Here, it'd be like asking a question and just getting an answer. In other words..... it's just asking a question and getting an answer. The analogy unnecessarily muddles the waters and because of the backwards element of the game it seems like an attempt to poison the well. And, while it is non-standard, redirects can exist that work this why. They are not forbidden. Remember, that redirects are there to aid users find what they want. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding What is truth? (quote) then for the Bible quote. I also found a film article Edi Nijam that translates to "What is Truth". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Among the Worldcat books, a lot of those are in reference to the John quote; published by some religious organization. So this may suit primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch with the film! Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've drafted a dab page below the redirect. Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambig is fine, although I would give prominence to this being a world famous, ~2000 year old quote from Pontius Pilate,* one of only two human beings mentioned by name in the Apostle's Creed (the other one being the Virgin Mary), whose name is thus recited in millions of Christian churches every Sunday, rather than acting like this is little more than a Jeopardy! question about the nature of truth (as User:Wbm1058 properly points out). I do get a little annoyed when we add dabs pages and "other usage notes" for purely pop-cultural reasons ("but my garage band also has an album called Apostle's Creed!"), but having owned a Johnny Cash CD or two in my time I'm hard pressed to argue in this case. -- Kendrick7talk 18:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC) *although maybe not the actual historical Pilate, but then again, what is truth?, right?[reply]
So prominence means primary topic and create "What is truth (disambiguation)" for these variants? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Went on trip and just got back. Interesting finds by people. Great job, everybody! I'm thinking a disambig solution would work well. Too tired right now after long drive to think more. Gotta get some sleep. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created What is truth (disambiguation), as it seems we have a consensus for that. The only open question here is whether John 18:38 is the primary topic for that. I don't see a strong case being made for pulling it off PT status, but neither am I strongly opposed to moving What is truth (disambiguation) → What is truth; it shouldn't be too much work to fix the links. I remain opposed to making anything else, such as Truth, the primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the dab over this redirect after deleting it. It is clear that there is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Champion, Wbm1058, I don't really see any reason to move the dab over the redirect. Why should we delete the redirect together with its history, the association with the current RfD as well as the original content of the dab page in order to make room for a copy that was only created yesterday? Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no big deal here. If there's no PT, we can just redirect the (disambiguation) page I created. Either way we need to have a page there for intentional links to disambiguation, and make sure this discussion is easy to find. Talk page template-notices and a link in an edit/move summary should cover that. wbm1058 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 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.

Lists of all bruno mars songs[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the target to be accurately described by the redirect, each individual song Bruno Mars has performed would have to be listed at the target. That is not the case. Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 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.

Las Vegas metropolitan area[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. Color me surprised too that this didn't prove controversial. I don't think a systematic review of incoming links is necessary here. The two concepts are quite similar, so some may already be wrong, and for many, it may not make much of a difference. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing a retarget to Las Vegas Valley, which is an article about the Las Vegas metropolitan area. I'm taking this here rather than act boldly due to a colorful edit history (I'd recommend checking it out). -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so if I'm understanding this right, the only difference between the "Las Vegas Valley" and the US Census Bureau's definition of the "Las Vegas–Paradise, NV MSA" is that the MSA is the entirely of Clark County, whereas the LV Valley is just a few municipalities?--Prisencolin (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tavix, I have spent various amounts of time off and on during the last several days, trying to get a handle on what to do with this one redirect. The further I look, the more confused I get. On the surface of it, the current target is right in a technical sense; technically speaking, "metropolitan area" is equal to "MSA". But in a broader sense, the current target doesn't do justice to the concept, and the Valley seems to encompass whatever people tend to think when they think "metropolitan area."
On the other hand, there has been much acrimony and confusion for years about how to name articles about the Vegas area. But it's awfully quiet here, as if the editors that really care about these issues are unaware of this proposed retarget. Retargeting is also not to be taken lightly, because well over a hundred articles link to this redirect. A good many of them are deliberately aiming at the current target, but I think the majority are not. If this retarget is done, we should go through all those articles and relink them properly before the retarget is made. (At least it's not 4,000 links!)
Here is a sampling of past discussions and thoughts that concerned these articles: 2007, 2008, 2012, and earlier this year. I don't think it's right to change this redirect without a lot more input. — Gorthian (talk) 06:33, 22 September 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.

Llswcf eps[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term created by sock account should be deleted. Agathoclea (talk) 12:48, 16 September 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.

Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wrong spelling of 'anisotropy', removed the last link from history of physics. Artm7777 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least for now and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. This has been getting a steady trickle of hits - likely due to the link, but it isn't possible to know how much use it will get now that has been removed. I suggest keeping it for now and then looking again in a few months, if it is no longer getting any uses at that point then deletion may be appropriate but if it continues to be used then it's best kept to help people find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; misspelled versions of titles can be useful search terms. — Gorthian (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Gorthian. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:26, 23 September 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.

Classis Germanica[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 procedural close – article created.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to make this an actual article, which I cannot do if this is a redirect. Iazyges (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a perfectly reasonable subject for its own article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forgot the rules for a moment. What everyone else said: (See Below) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The request is nonsensical. The redirect is perfectly valid and stays until there's an article. When there is, replace the redirect with it. There's no need to delete anything.

    Procedural silliness aside, godspeed on the article creation and thanks for your good work. — LlywelynII 08:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Llywleyn. Either overwrite the redirect with your article (just edit it in exactly the same way you did to nominate it here), or if you want to draft it first, then it can be moved over the redirect when the article is ready - just ask at WP:RM if you can't do it yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - you don't need to delete a redirect to write an article there, you just need to edit the redirect page Margalob (talk) 13:59, 16 September 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.

General Purpose[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 General-purpose.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the actual origin of "jeep", but the redirect implies it is. Anmccaff (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'll work quite nicely. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 20 September 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.

MSLI[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 Montenegro Lines. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, no notable uses of this abbreviation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I also support deletion. 'MSLI' is the term used by NASDAQ for the Merus Labs International company. I don't see any particular connection to Microsoft; no clue here why this redirect was made. The Mercus firm may be notable, but they don't currently have a page for it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Montenegro Lines - I've changed my mind, and we can always look back on this should the Mercus Labs organization become widely notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MSLI is also "Microsoft Licensing" (AKA "Microsoft Software Licensing Group") which is a general partnership based in Reno, Nevada. The only real information I've found about them is from [1] "[MSLI are] responsible for managing all aspects of licensing of Microsoft software products in North America". There is no information about the group in the Microsoft article, nor anywhere else that I can find, and they are unlikely to be independently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a valid abbreviation for Microsoft Licensing, and I assume that is why I created it. However, there are other expansions (at least the Merus Labs), and I have no objection to deleting it. Mattflaschen - Talk 13:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can be revisited should Merus Labs become notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC) updated 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Montenegro Lines. Good find! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Retarget to Montenegro Lines. At first I was thinking we could make a dab out of it (I have disambiguation on the brain these days), but then found that there's almost nothing on Wikipedia using this acronym (and definitely nothing in any Microsoft article). There's a red-linked enzyme code, and there's Montenegro Lines (Montenegro Shipping Lines Inc.). Redirecting to the latter is possible, since that acronym is even in their logo. I can't make up my mind between retargeting there or just deleting it. — Gorthian (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Okay, I made up my mind. — Gorthian (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Montenegro Lines. That's a prominent enough usage of the acronym to warrant a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Montenegro Lines per Gorthian and Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:27, 23 September 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_September_16&oldid=1088108395"