Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2017.

Amenable[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Amenable" is a perfectly good adjective for anything. Its usage in math should not be considered dominant. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC) SteveStrummer (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig or keep. It also seems a reasonable search term for Amenable species and Amenable number, maybe also Kripke–Platek set theory (where Amenable set redirects) but I really don't understand what that article is about, but I wouldn't object to keeping it as is if others disagree. Wherever the redirect leads though there should be a link to the Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Amenable" as a disambiguation page is inappropriate for unrelated topics like Amenable species and Amenable number, per WP:PTM (although hatnotes would be useful to interlink the math pages). But the word "Amenable" by itself really isn't a reasonable search term for any of them because they're so far from the most common usage. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disambiguation pages suffer when style guidelines take precedence over utility to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or retarget to agreeableness. If you stopped random people on the street and asked them what "amenable" means, 99 out of 100 will say it means "receptive," "responsive," or "agreeable." Maybe one would use a technical definition. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new disambiguation page for "amenable". It can link to agreeableness but there's good cause to have separate indices for these two words. Deryck C. 15:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PTM Very difficult to believe any of these topics would simply be referred to as "amenable". --BDD (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target strikes me as very unlikely to be what the reader is searching for, and agreeableness is a different enough concept that it fares no better on that front. As SteveStrummer points out, any disambiguation page would be severely hampered in what it could include by WP:PTM and, while there is perhaps a case for a WP:IAR approach to that guideline in this case, we're still faced with the problem that all of the terms listed above (Amenable group, Amenable number, Amenable set and Amenable species) are technical terms and are far from the most common use of the word. The term is too common for a soft redirect, but if this is deleted and the reader searches for this term, they'll see in the sidebar the link to Wiktionary's definition (alongside all the articles listed above), which is the best possible result. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at least the mathematical articles and perhaps a wiktionary link. —Kusma (t·c) 15:59, 7 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 British idioms[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 Category:British English idioms. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this should target, given that the phrase "British idioms" does not assume comparison to American English. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Category:British English idioms. If we ever get a list specifically of British ones (and I can't see that even Wiktionary currently has one) it will appear in this category. The current target and similar comparisons would make good see-also links in the description of the category. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 4 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.

Wikipedia:FAKENEWS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 14#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS

Anime Original Characters from Kinnikuman[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 List of Kinnikuman characters#Anime-original characters. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific list or definition for "anime-original" characters (versus "manga" characters) at the target page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator update: After seeing AngusWOOF's comment below, I now believe that all of the nominated redirects should be retargeted to List of Kinnikuman characters#Anime-original characters since all redirects could potentially be helpful search terms for the anime information. Not sure how I missed that section. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Kinnikuman anime-original characters is a {{R from merge}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 4 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.

Balt.[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) 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by mistake by someone thinking "Balt" was the ISO 4 abbreviation for the Baltimore magazine.

This is wrong on two level. Single-word titles are never abbreviation. And if Baltimore were abbreviated, it would be abbreviated as Baltim.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Made up designation or abbreviation. It does not exist and is of no value to Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be utterly surprised if there were not enough meanings of "Balt" to have a disambiguation page to which this could point. bd2412 T 17:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Balts, or failing that delete. In the absence of any established use as an abbreviation of "Baltimore", this redirect ought to point to the same target as the same term without the full stop at the end. I don't think there are enough plausible meanings of "Balt" for a disambiguation page to be appropriate, especially bearing in mind WP:PTM. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Baltimore (disambiguation) as used as an abbreviation for Baltimore, since it's been used for Baltimore County (Balt. Co.) as per these news articles: [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there's a primary topic for "Baltimore", I don't think it makes sense to point this elsewhere if we take it to be an abbreviation for the name. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a somewhat plausible typo for "Balt", and that sends readers to Balts. This is also a fairly common abbreviation for "Baltimore" (see, e.g., Balt.-Wash. Parkway), but I think readers would be best served by simply using the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, "Balt." is also the ISO 4 abbreviation for Baltic, so that retarget would make some sense, although no one would search for "Balt." alone.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should it go to a dab page then with Baltic and Baltimore (disambiguation) as entries? Are there another uses of Balt. as abbreviation? Or should there be a Balt (disambiguation) page, which could then include Bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT)? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 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.

Militant capitalists[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 deleted by Awilley. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was PROD'd with the rationale, "This page has a biased title and is POV" The redirect is implausible. Originally it redirected to Neoconservatism, that does not appear to be any better as a target than the current target of United States Armed Forces#Overseas. ~ GB fan 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Title or nomenclature is not supported by reliable sources and is therefore made up. It is obviously biased and implausible. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Biased" or polemical redirects are not necessarily a problem, but we require them to be terms that are actually used to refer to the target, and I can find no evidence of that being the case, nor can I imagine any other target being more suitable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This source suggests that retargeting to neoliberalism might be appropriate, but that's only one of a number of sources I found which use the term, ranging from this sort of usage (without specifying neoliberalism or some other economic-right philosophy) to the Chilean revolutions of the 1970s, to the rise of Nazi Germany and pre-WWII fascism elsewhere. But I've found nothing to suggest a link to the US military. It's not well defined, and we shouldn't try to invent a definition. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it's snowing. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is an WP:XY of Militant and Capitalism and I don't see a bunch of news articles putting the two words together in any useful manner. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_4&oldid=1138582197"