Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2017.

List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs[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. Thanks to AngusWOOF for cleaning up the target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible/incorrect redirects, as the article's scope no longer includes cyborgs. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the main gynoid article still refers to List of fictional female robots and cyborgs to get to the fictional gynoids page. I tried to change the wording up front on the list to exclude cyborgs and female robots that were not humanoids. However, there are a ton of examples that would need to be scrubbed out such as EVE from Wall-E. Then you have Seven of Nine / Borg Queen which are technically cyborgs from Star Trek, but may be regarded as gynoids by some articles. Same with female cybermen for Doctor Who. They are more of an cyborg-based alien species. Also what about holographic women like Red Queen (Resident Evil) and Cortana (Halo) or Virtual Woman? Or biological clones that are activated and programmed? Can someone confirm what the list should include and exclude? If everything is to be kept, then the redirects should be retained. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVE from Wall-E falls firmly in the "robot, not gynoid" category. A gynoid is specifically a female android. EVE is a robot with a female name but no other defining characteristics that would make it female, at least that I remember. Seven of Nine is also not a gynoid, the Borg are clearly cyborgs and part-organic. As there is no inherent notability in the idea of a female cyborg, she should be included in List of fictional cyborgs (where she already is, so no modifications are needed). Hologram people are not gynoids, they are artificial intelligences, so Cortana would not qualify unless she got a physical body. Basically, anything that you would use to define an android, but with a female gender, would fall under it, everything else should be deleted as not falling under the proper scope.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to this I have scrubbed the list to remove the cyborgs so this is ready for a Delete both. The hatnote on the gynoid page was also changed. The lists for AI's, cyborgs, robotic species, and robots in general were added as See also's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They're not remotely plausible search terms, but be sure to retarget any incoming links from page moves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 4 November 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.

ÉWN[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) 02:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Non-notable music artist. If this did not have the accent, I would've retargeted this redirect elsewhere, except no organization that uses this abbreviation even uses the accent. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 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.

Zookeepers[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 Zookeeper. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect. Current target refers to a non-notable music artist associated in some way with the label and currently isn't mentioned in the target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 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.

Vidya Vidya[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) 02:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Non-notable music artist. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no mention at the target, having the redirect is misleading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 30 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.

Sex Whales[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) 02:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Non-notable music group. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no mention at the target, having the redirect is misleading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 30 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.

Molly Ann[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Molly Ann

Wikipedia:WikiProject/copyright[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) 02:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, subpages to the WP:WikiProject/ name-space should be temporary or have a valid use only. Redirects like this are generally indistinguishable from actual draft wikiprojects when using automated tools. Dysklyver 16:54, 30 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.

Electronic Vibes[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) 02:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to refer to. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no mention at the target, having the redirect is misleading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 30 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.

Index (ideologies)[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) 02:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why these redirects target the disambiguation page Index. In addition, for Index (ideaologies), the disambiguator is misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 30 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.

Talk:MOS:TENSE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 11#Talk:MOS:TENSE

Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley

Radical leftist[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 Radical left. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove redirect to from "radical leftist" to "far-left politics". Radical and the far end of either side of the political spectrum are not the same. One can be radical without being on either far end. Helper201 (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose but retarget to Radical left, per AngusWOOF, at least for now. In general parlance, "radical" and "far" are synonymous, even if in some poli-sci materials they might be distinguishable. I'm skeptical there is, e.g., a single reliable source for a barely, marginally left-leaning centrist being described as a "radical leftist".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is there are a lot of left-wing and right-wing parties that are not either far-left or far-right but have ideas and polices that are seen as radical by the centre-left, centre and centre-right, as they are radically different from the status quo. Being radical doesn't mean being extreme. Helper201 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that's how the word is usually used in everyday English. Again, I think this is a conflict between regular usage and political science's much more specific meaning for it, but we have no article pertaining to that meaning. And don't seem likely to get one if no one's bothered yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Radical left which gives options as to how to interpret Radical left-ists.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 30 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.

World Café (conversational process)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#World Café (conversational process)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_30&oldid=1088105993"