Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 17, 2017.

Surg. Edosc.[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Hmm.. you're right, it does seem like a common typo. Let's withdraw this then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 18 October 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.

Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities (Quebec)[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: Duplicated redirect and there's no other entity with the name "Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities" in any language or elsewhere in the world. SomeRandomPasserby (talk) 09:08, 17 October 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.

WP:NOMORE[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 since there has been no specific retarget suggestions provided. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget. No connection to the topic, and not mnemonic. This makes about as much sense as redirecting "WP:STOPTHEMADNESS" to an essay like WP:Specialized-style fallacy. Smacks of WP:POLEMIC. I created a more sensible shortcut for this (very wise) essay, at WP:POLSILENCE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The reason this exists is that the essay originally had a totally different focus, a WP:CREEP- and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY-based plea to stop creating new rules at all. ("NOMORE" meant "no more rules", not "we can't take it any more" or "you'd better stop or else"; so, not polemical in that context.) The shortcut made sense in that context, and we have other essays on that topic. By blind coincidence, I happen to have written one of them yesterday (WP:AJR), though I'm not sure it's the best choice if people wanted to have this point somewhere about the need to stop making more pointless rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the best thing to do here will be to restore the original essay somewhere and retarget this shortcut to point there, that way the old links to it make sense. I don't understand why it was history merged, but pinging Xeno who was the one to perform it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was to restore attribution as best I can tell. Looks like one user userfied it and another user re-added the content without reversing the move. So I merged it to get the history back in the right place. The essay seems to have grown organically from the NOMORE policies argument. I have no opinion about splitting, etc., but please ensure appropriate attribution is fulfilled. –xenotalk 14:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:57, 17 October 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.

Post-kinetic environment[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 20:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, possibly WP:REDLINK-caliber redirect. Apparently, this term refers to the environment after an explosion, not an explosion itself. Either way, at the present time, the redirect is not mentioned in the target page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither of the suggested retargets mention "post-kinetic environments".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. If a redirect is ambiguous and should not become a disambiguation page (such as this one), let Wikipedia's search function serve our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe that I voted on my own nomination, and didn't even realize it until now. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I don't even see how this makes any sense. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kinetic military action, which explains the euphemism. [2] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kinetic military action, as apparently that's the only context in which the term has been used. It's definitely not redlink-worthy as the phrase is definitely not notable. Even the proposed target is of suspect notability (has been tagged as such for years), so if that gets deleted at some point, the redirect will go as well. – Uanfala 00:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a productive relist, I'll give this one more kick of the can.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not retarget to Kinetic military action because in my opinion it does not explain the term. It could, for instance, mean the area where a bomb has gone off, or it could mean the global situation after kinetic warfare has become unfashionable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhhhnotsoloud as I had a similar reaction after reading that article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 27 October 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.

2003J6(moon)-- statistics of Jupiter's Moon[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 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, could not find usage of this exact phrase in other sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of space before the bracket, unnecessary disambiguation of "(moon)" followed by "-- statistics of Jupiter's Moon", and no mention of such a satellite in the Moons of Jupiter article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unlikely to be used to find this article, Google search shows no result of usage of the term. Ammarpad (talk) 16:17, 20 October 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.

Bariene surgeonfish,[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 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random trailing comma, Bariene surgeonfish exists Plantdrew (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is my mistake. I created it in AFC/Redirect. Unbeknown to me while copying, the highlight extended to comma as the name is in middle of many names. -Ammarpad (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Creator is okay with deletion as well --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 19 October 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.

Comedian rush limbaugh[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not described as such in target, plus, it is not a valid form of address like "President" or "Doctor" etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:49, 17 October 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.

Early 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Launch Week (Redirect is ambiguous) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful for building consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not just "what is known as Early Stage" but also "what are people looking for when they search for Early Stage". The two are not necessarily the same. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To point out the obvious, someone searching “Early Stage” would in fact be looking for something known as “Early Stage”. Do you have evidence or are you just going to badger me again? -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked for evidence in this specific case yet, but to state what really should be blindingly obvious people will look for things known as "Early Stage", things they think are known as "Early Stage" and things for which they don't know the name but think "Early Stage" is a search term that will let them find it (not everybody knows the correct name of what they are looking for). It is our job as editors to cater for all of these, indeed that is why we have {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from search term}} redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have evidence to prove anything listed here is known as "Early Stage", then we'll talk. If not, you're wasting your time. Sorry, but I am a big proponent of WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on my list to do, but while you might be a big fan of WP:PTM I'm a much bigger fan of not letting arbitrary guidelines get in the way of readers finding the content they are looking for, whether they search for it in accordance with how some editors think they should or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunate that you don't have respect for a long standing guideline that enjoys widespread consensus among the community. If something isn't known as "Early Stage", there's no reason to assume someone may be using "Early Stage" to search for it. Even if the term is incorrect, it would still need to be used incorrectly in the first place for it to be plausible as a search term. Instead of responding with baseless insults to our guidelines, your time would be better spent showing how these may be known as "Early Stage". -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would hold off on the unsupported accusations of disrespect and implied bad faith editing here and the insistence I spell out things at a level a primary school child would find patronising elsewhere then I would have more time. I personally think it is blindingly obvious why any of the things listed above would be searched for using the "early stahe" search term, given a basic comprehension of English and a 2 minute perusal of the linked articles, but maybe we do have to go back to primary school level here as well. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I've made it clear that your time is being wasted without evidence. If you're just going to keep badgering me with insults and baseless claims, then stop replying. -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While researching "Launch Week" below I found sources referring to that album as simply "Launch Week". Therefore, this album would be likewise. I still maintain my previous argument regarding other potential disambiguation entries: I believe everything else provided is a WP:PTM, but I am willing to be persuaded by evidence saying otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. If I recall, I moved the target to its current title, and I made the same finds Tavix did. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 00:36, 17 October 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.

Launch Week[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.. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is ambiguous; Launch Week could mean anything, not just the title of the target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. it's certainly not primary topic especially if it is a subtitle for the album. Launch week can refer to any kind of week where they do a launch, be it a product, event, project, or actual space launch. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the title can be referred to simply as "Launch Week" and there's no other competing use besides the general "a week of launches", but there isn't anywhere that discusses that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. If I recall, I moved the target to its current title, and I made the same finds Tavix did. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 00:36, 17 October 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.

Take the Wheel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 27#Take the Wheel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_17&oldid=1144235471"