Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2018.

Sit out[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Sit out

How Television Works[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How television works ... and since television is not exclusive to analog. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2018 (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.

Camera (conventional)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Camera (conventional)

Electronic camera[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 History of the camera. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor Talk 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all electric cameras are digital. It's probably best to delete this redirect since not all cameras through history have been electronic either. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2018 (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.

Digital Camera FinePix A345 Ver1.00[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 Fujifilm FinePix A350. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, per the way which this redirect is formatted, it is probably overly-WP:PRECISE to where there may be an option for either retargeting or deleting per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If it were just FinePix A345 it would go to Fujifilm FinePix A350; the latter article does not describe any version 1.00's AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to FinePix A345 as a {{R from EXIF}} (I'll add this tag without prejudice). This is the value of the "Software used" field in the EXIF of at least some photographs on Commons taken using that model of camera, see for example File:Mori Sengen Shrine01.JPG (you might need to view the file on Commons to see the EXIF information). The values of certain fields, including this one, that are written by the camera software are automatically linked to pages of that exact title on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia or Commons is placing and linking that string, then yes, reconsider to redirect as above. Is there a way to tag such uses? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I've understood your question, but there is no possible way (that I or anyone who has edited the {{R from EXIF}} template knows about) to find which images have this string in their EXIF using what links here or similar. It is misleading to say that Wikipedia/Commons is "placing" the link - it is placed in the EXIF information by the camera when the photograph is taken, Commons at least (I haven't looked on en.wp or other English language projects) just chooses to link that string to here - turning it off would obviously require consensus at that project. I don't think it is possible to link to something other than the exact string, but it's been several years since I last investigated that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2018 (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.

Coin card[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. Am I the only one who thought of laundromats/laundry machines that have you put cash on a card and then use that at the machine? No? Anyway, delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Appears to be a neologism that hasn't caught on in any news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've hidden (from non-admins) the edit summary used when creating this redirect. It was "A digital credit card that is pretty cool." followed by the name of a non-notable person (not unlikely a classmate) and the adjective "sucks". Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (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.

Template:Digital currency[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR from the "Template:" namespace to the article namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a remnant of a page-move mistake from 2013. – Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template → article is possibly the type of cross-namespace redirect that is least often a good thing to have, and this is not an exception to that general case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an apparent remnant of a move mistake. No need to keep this around. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:18, 17 May 2018 (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.

Instant grat download[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Instant grat download

Women's Intuition[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. Much obliged to AngusWOOF, as per usual ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The words "woman" or "women" are not present in the target article. Per the list of references, this title seems to refer to a specific publication of some sort; if that is the case, it would seem as though this redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Woman's Intuition and dabify. It is being used for multiple titles for television shows and song titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per AngusWoof Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 18 May 2018 (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.

Intuition--philosophy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Intuition--philosophy

Al-Jalala mountain[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (possibly a different mountain? If not, not a very likely typo). If I am missing something or content is added appropriately, I will happily withdraw. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC); edited 07:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All these spellings can be found in media articles on occasion: [1][2][3] 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - all understandable transliterations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sensible romanisations, though I'm not sure all the capitalisation variants are necessary. – Uanfala (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mountain as above. I think if we get rid of the lower-case "mountain" ones, the cap ones will still show up in search. I'm a bit confused though as to the difference between the second and third entries Al-Jalala Mountain and Al-Jalala Mountain? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 10 May 2018 (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.

Template:Tooltip[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 Deprecate. Following the plan set out by Tavix and Kusma:
  1. All uses will be reviewed for appropriateness under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text.
  2. Appropriate uses should be converted to use {{Abbr}}; Any non-abbreviations should be removed or replaced with footnotes.
  3. Once all uses are cleared, {{Tooltip}} will be replaced with an error message, something along the lines of {{Tooltip}} is deprecated. {{Abbr}} should be used to provide accessible use of abbreviations, but other uses of tooltips should be avoided.

I imagine this would likely be done largely with AWB assistance, but I think advertising at WP:AWB/TA might be inappropriate as this is will be a bit of a process and will require human decision making. I'll wait until this evening and mull it over, in case anyone here has comments or suggestions as to how to move forward. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template was originally turned into a redirect in this discussion.

Nominated for deletion. While the name of this redirect is accurate to its functional purpose, use of this template suggests general use of tooltips is acceptable, in contradiction to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Text, which states: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text. Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the {{abbr}} template may be used to indicate the long form of a word.". Since this template is widely used, I have started a bot task request for replacing it (among other purposes), should this discussion be in favor of deleting it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 04:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussions is favor of deleting, COSMETICBOT will not be a concern, as it states: "Consensus can, as always, create exceptions for particular cosmetic edits. For example, the community frequently determines that a particular template should be substituted so it can be deleted, even though the substitution does not change the output of the page."
  • Keep The redirect name is easy to guess name. As to abuse, using AWB's database scanner there are only 204 that exceed 140 characters \{\{\s*(?:[Tt]emplate:|)(?:[Aa]bbreviation|[Aa]bbrv|[Aa]bbr|[Dd]efine|[Mm]ousetext|[Tt]ooltip)\s*[|][^{}]{140,}\}\} Those should be fixed but no reason for nuking this redirect. — Dispenser 13:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't the only abuse; per accessibility concerns tooltips shouldn't be used unless they are for abbreviations Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dispenser: My concern is the name is misleading to its purpose, which is expanding abbreviations (stated in WP:ACCESSIBILITY, as I mentioned in the nomination above). The concern is users will continue to misuse this template because of the name. Also, 140 characters seems like an extremely high bound for abbreviations; most abbreviations are probably under 50 characters. When the Wikipedia search is used to test in that range (using the regex \{\{[tT]ooltip[^|]*\|[^}]{50}), there are 1,594 results. That is 1.9% of total transclusions, not a large percentage, but significant, and makes me think deleting {{tooltip}} leaves less room for ambiguity in {{abbr}}'s purpose. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What would a bot do when it finds {{Tooltip...}}? Changing it to {{Abbr...}} doesn't improve the presentation; it just conceals any abuse of Abbr. Stripping it out puts able-bodied readers on a par with those who can't see tooltips but, as it improves legibility for no one, is that actually useful? Can we find a presentation which works for all readers? The headers in the table at Paavo Nurmi#Seasons may be a good example: Starts is a tooltip; DNF is a genuine abbreviation. What would we want those headers to look like after this change? Certes (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Since the number of abuse cases is manageable, semi-automated edits will handle misuse cases first. Misuse of tooltips should mostly be moved to prose, or moved to a footnote. I have made an edit to Paavo Nurmi#Seasons to demonstrate what I mean. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete later, after giving eπi and others time to amend pages which use it. Please do not delete the redirect immediately at closure time, or 83,000 embarrassing redlinks will appear. Certes (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate, as long as the usage of the redirect is cleared manually or semi-automatically, because the differences between legitimate and illegitimate usage of tooltip will need to be resolved in different manners (like the Paavo Nurmi#Seasons example). Once the links have been cleared, I think it would be best to replace the redirect with an error message, stating the accessibility issues with tooltip and pointing to {{abbr}} if one is trying to use tooltip for an abbreviation. Straight up deleting the redirect may make it seem that tooltip is never legitimate, which is not accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we display the error message? Should Tooltip become a soft redirect to Abbr, once existing uses have been fixed? Certes (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I got the idea from a previous RfD where the result was deprecate. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Template:Cc-by-sa for an example of what it could look like. Basically, it would be a message using {{error}} that explains the accessibility issues and links to {{abbr}}. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate as Tavix says. Clearing up the uses of {{tooltip}} seems reasonable to reduce confusion and bad uses Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If we're going to deprecate 80,000 uses, I'd like a bit more consensus, especially given the BRFA conversation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a keep and a couple deletes in here, but those were made 1. before the "deprecate" option was floated, and 2. while the idea of a bot/semiautomated action seemed viable; it no longer does. I will not be relisting this again, it's been longer than the Flood already; if the world can be beset and reset with rain, we can solve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and replace with error message as mentioned above. There's no good solution here, but that's the least worst solution we have I think. Richard0612 08:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. Some uses can be replaced by {{abbr}}, others need to be fixed for accessibility reasons (and might need turning into footnotes, or proper sentences). I would suggest replacing with {{abbr}} where that is correct (can be done with AWB while checking manually), then try to fix other transclusions, then replace by error message. We could allow it to work outside of mainspace though. —Kusma (t·c) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the hail mary 4th listing has generated a few more comments. I also posted on WT:ACCESSIBILITY and Template talk:Abbr Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the final ending of the page Template:Tooltip, it should not redirect to Template:Abbr. Abbr's tooltip is a special case in HTML that is required to be the abbreviation's expansion; the name "tooltip" does not indicate that restriction. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, hence why we're wanting to deprecate it and make it not redirect to Abbr as it currently does (but instead show an error/be deleted) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:29, 9 May 2018 (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.

Visaal[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 Article created. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic to be of use as a redirect (see page history); not mentioned at target page anyways. ansh666 19:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one Pakistani drama serial of Same name is currently airing therefore to make way for that drama serial, it should be deleted and its also not much important to be kept in my opinion, Here are drama links for verification. [4], [5] and [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.58 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or overwrite. Deletion is not necessary here - just overwrite the redirect with the content of the article you want and add a hatnote to Visaal – Ghazals for Connoisseurs (an album by Hariharan). In the absence of an article this should be retargeted to Hariharan discography as an avoided double redirect of Visaal – Ghazals for Connoisseurs. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 9 May 2018 (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.

UFC on Fuel TV 7[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 UFC on Fuel TV: Barão vs. McDonald. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mention the target of the redirect. UFC on Fuel TV: Barão vs. McDonald is the main redirect target. 99.109.85.105 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm not sure what the intent of this nomination is; will leave a note for the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 9 May 2018 (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.

In event of moon disaster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#In event of moon disaster

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_9&oldid=1138582509"