Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<no include>{{rfd login headers|2023|August 20|2023|August 2023}</no include>

August 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 21, 2017.

Wikipedia:MCW[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 proposal approved. With no objection after two weeks, feel free to make all the necessary changes once you get the new page up and running. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is redirects to an inactive project. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but it is taking the place of something else which, IMO, is more important, which would actually be used.

With JLaTondre (talk · contribs), I'm working making a magazine/publisher equivalent to WP:JCW (Journals Cited by Wikipedia), which is used by WP:JOURNALS to prioritize work and article creation. We'll need the equivalent shortcut WP:MCW (Magazines Cited by Wikipedia) and WP:PCW (Publishers Cited by Wikipedia).

While one could in theory use a different shortcut for those (e.g. WP:MAG/CITED, the idea is to have a unified and intuitive approach to everything: By simply changing a letter, you go from journals, to magazines, to publishers. Likewise all the templates used for the compilations, would follow that convention (e.g. {{JCW-row}}/{{MCW-row}}/{{PCW-row}}), and so would the secondary shortcuts like (e.g. WP:JCW/POP/WP:MCW/POP/WP:PCW/POP.)

For this reason, I'd like to change all existing use of WP:MCW to WP:CW/M, for Collaboration of the Week / Maintenance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question 100%, but from what I see it is not used in template space, which to my understanding, is where edit notices live. But if it was used in them, it would be a simple matter to update the edit notices. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Sorry, I meant edit summaries. I've updated my comment above. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't even begin to give you a guesstimate, since there is no way to search edit summaries that I know of, but I do plan on having a
"WP:MCW" redirects here. For the Maintenance Collaboration of the Week, see WP:CW/M.
notice at the landing page telling people looking for the Maintenance COTW where to go. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems that Chickadee46 uses (or at least used to) this link in their signature. They haven't edited since February but should still be given the opportunity to comment, so I'll drop a note on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (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.

List of american words[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 28#List of american words

List of British idioms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 4#List of British idioms

List of words having different meanings in British and American English/rewrite[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was formerly used to hold a draft for a new version of its target page (which has since been moved elsewhere.) However, as a redirect, the use of "/rewrite" makes it an implausible redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep to preserve the history of the discussions it is mentioned in. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The edit history has been moved to List of words with different meanings in British and American English. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I'm talking about not breaking links from discussions that mention this, not the editing history of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talkspace without leaving redirect. Article subpages used to be enabled in the software until well after the naming conventions enforced the use of descriptive titles. Hence a lot of article rewriting drafts have names like (main:)Article/draft. Moving to talkspace will preserve the history and subpage structure but clean the mainspace of such redirects. Deryck C. 15:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Delete, or even WP:CSD#G6 Technical deletion since the edit history has already been moved away. Deryck C. 21:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: What history are you referring to? The oldest history still on this redirect is from 21 August 2017. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2017 (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.

List of words having different meanings[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) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Words with different meanings" is not exclusive to American versus British English. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There are various comparison of similar language/dialect articles, and also homophones and homographs could be meant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd be wary of creating disambiguation pages for such exceptionally vague phrases. – Uanfala 13:52, 23 August 2017 (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.

Different meanings[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) 18:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has an inherent ambiguity that cannot be defined or refined. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2017 (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.

List of Briticisms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 5#List of Briticisms

Briticism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 5#Briticism

British and american differences[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) 17:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is ambiguous, and could refer to more than just the English language. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2017 (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.

Casey Meekhof's Lexicon[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) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Huh? Who is Casey Meekhof? Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There seems to be someone by this name working at the intersection of biomechanics and computer hardware devices, but (a) they don't seem to be notable and (b) their field of work seems unrelated to languages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No Wikipedia notable person or lexicon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 22 August 2017 (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.

Faffing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 7#Faffing

John Ledbetter[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) 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character not mentioned at the target article; he apparently only was in one episode. A disambiguation page might be possible--there are real people with this name mentioned at Ruth Terry, SS Princess Sophia, and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council election, 1973, but they might be too trivial. BDD (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Was going to suggest the actor John (Jack) Gordon as a redirect but can't seem to find that page either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (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.

American English (Building layout)[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) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing disambiguator. The term "building layout" or even the term "building" is present nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This originated as a converter between the British and American systems of floor numbering (e.g. American first floor = British ground floor, British first floor = American second floor). Today this content is covered in much greater depth at Storey#Numbering but I don't regard this title as a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2017 (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.

Mither[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) 18:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the these redirects originally targeted List of British words not widely used in the United States#M; however, List of British words not widely used in the United States now redirects to Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States, but these words are not mentioned at Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States#M (so thus, I do not consider that a retargeting option for the redirects that currently target elsewhere.) Also, these redirects may qualify for WP:X1 considering most of the edits after Neelix were bot edits. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2017 (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.

Marvel’s Spider-Man[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 Marvel's Spider-Man. WP:IAR early close due to the lack of controversy with this suggestion and its obvious helpfulness. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing relative to Marvel's Spider-Man in search. Other version goes to DAB page. Naraht (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2017 (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.

Firstbit rotting[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) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I find the redirect amusing, having read Poul Anderson's Uncleftish Beholding, it remains a completely implausible search term. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting that someone noticed that this exists. Poul Anderson's Uncleftish Beholding does use the word rotting where physicists use the word decay, and firstbit where physicists use proton, but doesn't actually refer to "firstbit rotting", since proton decay would have been going rather far afield. At worst the existence of this redirect seems harmless. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it because you posted about it on the talk page under Talk:Proton decay#Firstbit rotting. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2017 (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.

Double sided random access memory[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 to delete, retarget to memory rank as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real thing, but the target article does not discuss it. Is there a better target, or should this be deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better target: "Single-sided" and "double-sided memory" are ambiguous, obsolete terms for what is today known as memory ranks. I've added this information there, maybe we can also redirect there. Please note that since this is history, it's practically impossible to find an RS. Sourced now. --Zac67 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is a train wreck Between page moves and a couple of bad edits the connection to the original text was simply left behind. The trail goes all the way back to this version of single sided/double sided which User:Neelix not unreasonably split apart to deal with a shared name situation. The problem is that the RAM article got beat up some more and then just reduced to a redirect without retaining any of the content (because it was unsourced, even though it's not exactly hard to get Ghits). I think that somehow this is trying to get in the direction of memory rank, but again the notion isn't really discussed in a way that would be obvious to someone following the redirect; somewhere along the line the lost content has to be merged somewhere, and all these redirects made to point to that spot. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please add Double-sided random access memory to this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (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.

Distinguishes[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 Distinguishes, keep distinguish, no consensus for distinguished. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This target is a somewhat obscure legal term. Is there a better target for this? The past tense form, distinguished, in particular usually means something else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Distinguishes" per Neelix, Keep "Distinguish" pointing to the legal term, and Retarget "Distinguished" to wikt:distinguished, pointing readers to the most common use of the term as an adjective. — JFG talk 09:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "distinguish" and "distinguished" as {{R from other tense}}. Delete "distinguishes", as the legal term is rarely used in the present tense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Distinguish seems to have a law term surrounding it. Perhaps these can go to Distinction or a hatnote to that be added to the law page? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:SP (d)[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 While most participants agree that it's an unlikely disambiguator, the fact that it was the page's title for 8 years may make it marginally useful as well as harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely/incomplete disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As it was the page's title for 8 years until today. Project pages might not be subject to the same level of consideration for avoidance of breaking incoming external links, but I don't think they should be completely exempt: people might have that in their bookmarks for example. I don't see any benefit from deletion that could outweigh the harm of breaking these. – Uanfala 11:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: That is true, but it is unlikely that readers will look up this redirect's title for a few reasons: 1) Wikipedia:Subpages (the current/assumed/longstanding WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for Wikipedia:SP) did not reference or link to the disambiguation page at either title until I fixed that, 2) The target page, Wikipedia:SP (disambiguation) was not properly formatted to appear to be a disambiguation page ... until I fixed that; the previous edit before my series of edits on that page happened in 2009, 3) the target page stated that Wikipedia:SP formerly targeted Wikipedia:Subpages ... which, per the edit history of Wikipedia:SP was the case for only about 6–7 hours, and 4) again, per the edit history of Wikipedia:SP, seems that the disambiguation page was at Wikipedia:SP until it was moved away in 2009, meaning any historical links to the disambiguation page would have been made to Wikipedia:SP without the "(d)". With that being said, the chance of there being any links bookmarked links or links to the nominated redirect in edit notices is honestly extremely slim to none. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, this does show then that deletion isn't very likely to cause harm, but I don't think the potential harm, even if so unlikely, is in any way offset by the benefit of the minuscule overall increase in tidiness that would result from deletion. – Uanfala 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, from what I could find, there is no precedence for using "(d)" as a disambiguator for the title of a disambiguation page. (I mean, granted, I would like for there to be another community-accepted disambiguator for disambiguation page titles in order to move the histories of improperly titled {{R with history}} redirects, but until that day comes, I have to refrain from suggesting anything ... but mainly because I do not have a good idea of what that disambiguator could be.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would definitely welcome a proposal to automatically create redirects with a shorter disambiguator than disambiguation – when a user wants to get straight to the disambiguation page, it's really cumbersome to have to type this long and easily mistypable disambiguator. – Uanfala 08:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a project-space redirect without any competing targets. People might be using it as a shortcut, as unlikely as it is for somebody to want a shortcut to a project disambiguation listing. There's little harm in keeping this redirect. Deryck C. 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2017 (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.

Airspace (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. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my next batch of problematic film redirects. These redirects target a director, actor, etc. that was rumored to be a part of a potential film. The problem, however, is that there is zero mention of such a film at the target, so anybody who wants to know more about these potential films will end up confused or disappointed. Most of these films are in development hell. They may or may not progress to production, and the director, actors, production studio, etc. could all change before then. Therefore, these redirects need to be red for now. If any of these enter production, then an article on the film can be created. Until then, these redirects aren't helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2017 (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.

Hinduism in Rwanda[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) 17:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect was created as an article, saying "Hindus form a minority community in Rwanda.The Indo-Rwanda form the Hindu community in Rwanda." With Hinduism being the dominant religion in India, any Indian community in x country would more than likely practice Hinduism, so this isn't saying much. The problem with this redirect is that nowhere can one find anything about Hinduism or Indo-Rwandans for that matter. Hinduism isn't mentioned at the target, India isn't mentioned at Demographics of Rwanda, nor at Rwanda. Someone trying to find information on this subject is going to end up at a dead end, so let's not misleading them into thinking there's information where there is not. -- Tavix (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (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/2017_August_21&oldid=1179751605"