Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 1, 2018.

Adaptive computing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 9#Adaptive computing

Faan hap[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, but without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to an article that explicitly discusses the concept and mentions the term (there is at the time of this discussion no such article). The set index suggestion did not receive any support. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term does not appear in target article. It seems that the target article was originally at the title "Faan hap" but was moved in 2007 and the term removed immediately in the next edit. Googling suggests that the term means "rice box" and is not specific to foam containers but could be made of another material. PamD 22:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Packed lunch where there is Bento for Japanese, and Dosirak for Korean, but otherwise it's just a packed lunch with rice in it. It's not tied to foam containers. Only one mention in a random book. [1] connecting it to rice box. Online dictionaries point to packed lunch [2] Also okay with deleting since it is not mentioned by type there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. The article seems to have only been at this location for one week in 2007, so we needn't worry about incoming external links. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My immediate hunch is don't delete. The Cantonese term 飯盒 faan hap has cultural affinity to the concepts of foam food container (primarily Asian concept; first image is a Cantonese lunchbox), bento (linked to zh:飯盒 and yue:飯盒), and more generally lunchbox. But the term doesn't align perfectly with the separation of topics in the English Wikipedia - it can refer to both the container and the container-plus-food. Maybe create set index? Deryck C. 15:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese article for Foam food container is at zh:發泡膠盒 Fā pào jiāo hé , but zh:便當 points to Bento so maybe it should redirect to Bento. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:20, 24 October 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) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of the proposed targets actually mention this term, nor meet WP:FORRED. "Faan hap" just means any kind of boxed lunch (or the container used to hold the lunch), generally bought as take-out from a restaurant. But bento is specifically about Japanese-style packed lunches, while packed lunch is about "lunch prepared at home and carried to be eaten elsewhere", and neither article discusses anything about those phenomena in Cantonese-speaking regions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per IP. Link to any topics currently covered on Wikipedia seem tenuous. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Suburban Rail Link[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 Commuter rail. Especially given the capitalization, disambiguation doesn't seem unreasonable, though the phrase is barely attested in the encyclopedia, and never with this capitalization. If someone wanted to try disambiguation, I'd suggest Suburban rail link (disambiguation) or Suburban Rail Link (disambiguation)—once established, perhaps an WP:RM to move it to the base title. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the name of the project to which this directs users. Has potential to cause confusion as well with similarly-named projects elsewhere in the world. Takerlamar (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak disambiguate While this is not the name of the project, it is not the proper name of any other project either. However where it is used in news reports as a specific name rather than a general descriptive phrase it almost always refers to either the suburban rail loop in Melbourne (the current target), Bengaluru Commuter Rail, Milan Passante railway or Proastiakos Athens (specifically route 1 from the airport to Piraeus). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Commuter rail (the same target as Suburban rail). This is a plausible search term, but it doesn't seem to be the proper name of any bit of rail of infrastructure, and certainly isn't the name of any rail line or network mentioned in the encyclopaedia. As such, pointing to a more general article seems like the best solution. I don't think a disambiguation page at this location could comply with WP:DABRELATED. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per User:Thryduulf. My DDG search revealed the same set of dominant topics as as Thryduulf, where each of these railway lines is called "suburban rail link" (with or without caps). Deryck C. 15:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Commuter rail / Suburban rail as there is no specific railway that uses this exact name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the ones above regularly get called this exact name. If there was just one railway that was regularly but unofficially called this then there would be no hesitation in redirecting the title there, so there should be similarly no hesitation in disambiguating when there are ~5 that are regularly but unofficially called this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really convinced by this reasoning. There's a difference between an unofficial name and a name for category that's sometimes used to refer to specific instances, and I think this is the latter. By way of comparison, there are lots of rail systems called "subways," but none are listed at the Subway disambiguation page, because it's not a name that those systems are known by specifically but rather a general term used for the category that those systems fall into. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 26 October 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) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note An article for the project in question now exists at Suburban Rail Loop. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is not a reasonably expected alternative title for the Suburban Rail Loop, and does not unambiguously refer to any other page. Triptothecottage (talk)
    • It does however ambiguously refer to several other articles - which is exactly the purpose of a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Arms & Hearts, and I also agree with their assessment why a disambiguation page does not work in this instance. This is a general name for certain suburban rails, not the proper name for any specific project(s). -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Watersportsgate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 10#Watersportsgate

IPC Cycling World Championships[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. Any issues with set index articles should be discussed at an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A circular redirect with incoming links to a DAB page (which means that User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK errors). I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: this is obviously not helpful to anybody. (Should IPC World Championships be a disambiguation page though? A set index article, as "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name", seems like it would be more appropriate – but unless converting to a set index was accompanied by adding some discussion of the cycling event then deletion would still be the right approach for this redirect.) – Arms & Hearts (talk)
That argument neatly exemplifies the problem with WP:SIAs. I spotted the problem precisely because IPC World Championships is a DAB page, and User:DPL bot had therefore flagged the error. If IPC World Championships had been a WP:SIA, this discussion would probably not be taking place. The bad link might never have been spotted by a reader who knows how to find WP:RFD.
It's even slightly worse than that. The readers who know most about the IPC Cycling World Championships, and are therefore capable and perhaps willing to write them up, are the least likely to click on a bad bluelink. Other readers clicking on it would have found precisely nothing.
IMO, WP:SIAs which relate to open topics risk damaging the encyclopaedia. A bad bluelink to a WP:SIAs which contains a complete list slows down navigation, but can be corrected by any passerby. A bad bluelink to a WP:SIA with an incomplete list can be a total dead end (as it would be in the present case). Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Daihaati Zabaan[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 Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term for which we don't currently have a good target. "Zaba(a)n" is the Urdu word for "language", and "Daihaati" (more commonly spelt "Dehati") is a word meaning "rural", and this crops up here and there as a name of various dialects in the Hindi belt (the one mentioned at Maithili language is only one among several). I'm not seeing any evidence that the whole phrase (with "zaban") has been used specifically for Braj. – Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or any other article. I don't know anything about the meaning of the phrase but I'm happy to take Uanfala at their word. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Cat in the Hat (character)[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) 12:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created as a result of an article which I nominated for deletion as a duplicate of the article on the book. I don't think this redirect serves any purpose. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target article contains information about the character (if it didn't the article at this title wouldn't have been a duplicate), and it's a very plausible search term. I'm unsure whether the redirect should target the top of the article or the plot section though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a search term which would find the article anyway. It has a purpose if there are two articles, one on the book & another on the character, but there are not, because the article on the book covers the topic fully.TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect with potential. This is useful in navigation and linking, and the target does cover the subject. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like most redirects, this serves the purpose of directing readers who search for a plausible search term to an article that contains relevant information. While it's true that someone who searches for this would find the correct article at the top of the search results if this was deleted, the same is true of thousands of other redirects (many of which refer to fictional characters and point to articles about the work[s] in which the character appears) and isn't grounds for deletion in itself: it's generally considered worth having the redirect to save the reader the extra click, given that redirects are cheap. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:LPOV[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) 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcut doesn't make much sense. It has nothing to do with POV (Point Of View, cf NPOV) that I can see, and it conflicts with an occasional use of LPOV to mean Left-wing Point Of View, itself a dubious concept I am looking at fixing, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV. It has virtually no pageviews for 90 days (I estimate 8 views before getting attention at MfD). It has only 15 very old incoming links, which I propose to fix by piping from the target, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Linguistics, if there is no disagreement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2018_November_1&oldid=1036307544"