Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2018.

Social libertarian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Social libertarian

List of Final Fantasy VII terms[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 move page history without leaving redirect. This seems to be the least resisted solution to the problem at hand. Thanks Graham87 for offering to do that. Deryck C. 12:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above redirects were merged to Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)#Geography in 2007. That article was then redirected to Compilation of Final Fantasy VII following an AfD in 2013. I'm not clear if any content was merged, but the Compilation article no longer contains such lists, and I don't see any other good targets for these titles.

Note that two of the above redirects (List of Final Fantasy VII locations and List of Final Fantasy VII terms) have non-trivial edit history. We may need to preserve those edit histories somewhere for WP:ATTREQ purposes. However, we do not need to locate them at titles which promise content that Wikipedia does not deliver; they can be moved elsewhere. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 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) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With no such lists, these are bound to disappoint readers. WP:NOTWIKIA is relevant. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Final Fantasy VII terms and List of Final Fantasy VII Locations, as someone who searches for them, while they might find some relevant information, will have to root around for it and won't find in the form they'd expect based on the redirect. I don't think redirects beginning with "List of" have to point to lists or list-like content, but in this case the relevant information is both quite dispersed and quite minimal. Don't keep List of Final Fantasy VII terms and List of Final Fantasy VII locations – the same reasoning applies, but presumably a solution other than deletion will have to be found to resolve the attribution issue. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @AngusWOOF, BDD, and Arms & Hearts: The consensus so far seems to be "don't keep but beware of the page history". Would a WP:HISTMERGE into the page history of Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), without leaving redirects at the current titles, be an acceptable solution to all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because parallel histories should not be merged, as doing so leaves a mess. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Deryck Chan: I don't really understand history merges, how they work or their effects (hence my vagueness in my !vote), so I would defer to anybody more clued-up than me on those matters. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's mostly ok with me, though with only a single mention at the target page, "Gaia" doesn't seem very solid, and could easily end up at RfD one day if the page contents change. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per BDD. There are no attribution issues at play here because there is no surviving content from these lists anywhere on Wikipedia. It's true that some merging took place from these lists into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), but nothing from these lists survived the 2013 AfD. It was a straight redirect, not a merge. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: move pages with attribution to talk subpages of Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, like [[Talk:Compilation of Final Fantasy VII/List of Final Fantasy VII terms. Yes the content of Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) got redirected, but the edits still exist so I think they should still be attributed properly. Graham87 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:43, 25 October 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.

ℛ[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 R. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol is not used in the target page. As it has no specific meaning (in mathematics, and probably elsewhere), it cannot be retargeted elsewhere D.Lazard (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All single unicode characters (outside the private use area) are very useful search terms and so should be or lead to a relevant article or disambiguation page. If there is no more specific meaning for this character then Letterlike Symbols is the article about the relevant unicode block. Unfortunately neither google nor Wikipedia's internal search engine distinguish between ℛ and R so searching for uses is not easy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll redirect it to Script typeface#Unicode, and this thread can be speedy closed. D.Lazard (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it would be best not to speedy close this thread as other people may have different views on the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "neither google nor Wikipedia's internal search engine distinguish between ℛ and R" is a massive problem. There are no such redirects to Script typeface, and I don't think we should start now. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to R. Nobody will be surprised to end up there as it contains a list of many other variations on the character and uses. I'll try again to find any uses of ℛ specifically when I work out how to exclude results for scripts in R (programming language). Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to R. This is Unicode U+211B ℛ SCRIPT CAPITAL R; in other words, it's just a capital letter R with a fancy typeface. That's why both Google and Wikipedia treat it as R, because that's what it's meant to be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Letterlike Symbols. I don't think someone who searches for this, presumably either looking for a specific meaning or generally curious as to its meaning, is well-served by the R article, which doesn't use or mention this symbol. The Letterlike Symbols article at least provides a little bit of context. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to R per above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 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.

Panadol (brand)[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 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects should point to the same target. feminist (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One is about the medication. The other is about one of the brands of this medication. So no is good how it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine Panadol (brand) to point to the Panadol section in Paracetamol brand names since GlaxoSmithKline has no information about Panadol itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both at their current targets, and refine Panadol (brand) to Paracetamol brand names#Panadol. I think someone who searches for "Panadol" is more likely to be looking for the broader article about the drug, while someone who searches for "Panadol (brand)" is more likely to be looking for the information about the trade name in the relevant section of the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I agree with the above two. WP:SMALLDIFFS apply here: if somebody types "panadol" they probably meant the drug, but if they add "(brand)" they probably want the company or the trademark. Deryck C. 10:47, 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.

MasSpec Pen[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 restore article without prejudice against AfD. There is agreement that the current target is unsuitable. As several editors argued for article restoration and there is debate about whether the topic itself merits inclusion on the English Wikipedia, AfD is a better place than RfD to have that discussion. @Doc James: You are welcome to take this to AfD as if this was a contested PROD. Deryck C. 12:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a highly notable new medial device for detection of cancer. the article includes multiple mainstream sources. there is no reason to keep redirecting this article. Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • with respect; unlike the text of this entry, adverts do not provide terse, concise fact-laden statements, seeking to provide basic informaiton with as little excesss verbiage as possible. as far as sources, from the Wikipedia guidelines that you cite above, the popular press is totally valid, even if it is not preferred for various types of topics. here is a direct quote from the guideline above:

A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}.

Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines.

as per this direct quote, using the popular press for general coverage is totally valid under the explicit terms of this guideline. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • also, with respect, @Doc James, what do you mean by labeling this as "Zero [valid] sources"?? here is a ref that i cited that is totally valid under the guidelines above!! QUOTE: The device uses mass spectrometry to perform chemical analyses. <ref name="abstract"> http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/406/eaan3968 Nondestructive tissue analysis for ex vivo and in vivo cancer diagnosis using a handheld mass spectrometry system], Jialing Zhang, John Rector1,2, John Q. Lin1, Jonathan H. Young1, Marta Sans1, Nitesh Katta2, Noah Giese1, Wendong Yu3, Chandandeep Nagi3, James Suliburk4, Jinsong Liu5, Alena Bensussan1, Rachel J. DeHoog1, Kyana Y. Garza1, Benjamin Ludolph1, Anna G. Sorace6, Anum Syed2, Aydin Zahedivash, Thomas E. Milner and Livia S. Eberlin,* Science Translational Medicine 06 Sep 2017. </ref> --Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MEDRS. No that is not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well, thanks for your reply. as per my own first comment above, the ref from science mag is fully valid, because all mainstream media outlets are valid; as I acknowledged above, although yes, WP:MEDRS highlights the need for established scientific journals on some medical topics; however it does not outright prohibit the use of sources from the popular press, as per the excerpt that i note above. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Livia S. Eberlin as this is a product from her research group, Livia S. Eberlin Research Group at University of Texas, Austin. [1] Eberlin's article can certainly be expanded to include a section on MasSpec as a product as that has hit multiple news media sources such as CNBC [2][3][4][5][6] [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the idea, but i disagree. i feel the article should be fully restored. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per nom, and take to AfD if necessary. The current target doesn't mention the device, so is clearly unhelpful. The device is mentioned at Scientific instrument, but the mention is so insubstantial as to be similarly unhelpful. If relevant content can be added to Livia S. Eberlin then retargeting there might be appropriate, but we can't decide that in advance of the content existing. In the absence of any appropriate target to redirect this to, the notability/MEDRS issues discussed above should be resolved at AfD rather than here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:45, 27 October 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.

September 8 Alaskan Low[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. Deryck C. 10:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many extratropical cyclones existed in Alaska, likely more than one on September 8 B dash (talk) 13:56, 25 October 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.

＃MeToo[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 - mistaken nomination - withdrawn. Polyamorph (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TSC it is a technical restriction that pages cannot contain special characters including #. This redirect does not actually physically work since the software interprets it as a section in wikipedia main page. So this should be deleted, unfortunately. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This title contains a ＃ (fullwidth number sign, 0xFF03) and not a # (number sign, 0x23). If you can slap an RfD tag on the page, it obviously exists. I've created ＃Metoo to demonstrate. Since it has incoming links and is fairly significant, I'd lean towards not deleting it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that is true, I guess my navigation problems were nothing to do with the title and just me doing something wrong, so this can be closed then. Polyamorph (talk) 11:01, 25 October 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.

Hegira (disambiguation)(2)[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 delete, G6 and G7. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created with this edit. User:Anthony Appleyard's edit summary says "without leaving a redirect", and yet one seems to have been created (and later edited only by bots). Was this an error? Does the current redirect serve any purpose? Cnilep (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cnilep: That move edit was "no redirect", so as its text it repeated the previous edit - - and that previous edit was a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you for commenting. Do you think the current redirect serves a purpose? If it does, it should not be deleted, but if it was merely created for technical reasons, maybe it should be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cnilep: Nobody is going to type "Hegira (disambiguation)(2)" when looking for information. Delete it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:38, 25 October 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.

Lou Ferrigno Jr.[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. Refine to Lou Ferrigno#Personal life ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person with the title "Jr." is the son of the subject in the redirect target. They're a different actor (compare: IMDBname:4609670 to IMDBname:0002073). The son is barely mentioned in the article, as noted by another user. The redirects should be deleted to avoid confusion and since the subjects are not the same. Opencooper (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BDD: All that section says about him are two short snippets: "They have three children ... Louis, Jr., born 1984"; "Louis, Jr. was a linebacker for the University of Southern California Trojans football team." If I read that, I wouldn't even know he was an actor, especially since the main article is about an actor himself. It makes no sense to redirect an article to someone's parent just because they're related by blood. The redirects should be deleted to allow redlinks, which can later be filled in. Opencooper (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a question of how likely Junior is to get his own article. If he were clearly notable enough to warrant a standalone article, I'd be much more sympathetic to the idea that we should redlink the name to highlight that need. It is not at all apparent to me that that's the case here, though. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine As a former college athlete, he's notable enough for some people to have heard of him independently of his father, which makes him a plausible search term. And if you think the acting career is notable, you can mention it. Of course, the GNG standard is higher. Smartyllama (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Lou Ferrigno#Personal life contained anything of substance about Lou Ferrigno Jr. I'd support a retarget but, as Opencooper has pointed out, the only mention in the 295-word-long section is quite literally "Louis, Jr., born 1984". Redlinking this might encourage someone to actually write an article about him. With a blue link it's not obvious to anyone that there is no actual article. Retargeting this would provide a precedent for similar redirects. Two that immediately come to mind are R.B. Fuller and Robert Bede Fuller, both targeted to Advance Australia Fair#History because the composer of the Australian national anthem chose to explain to him, and him alone, the reasons he wrote the song in a letter that is now in the archives of the National Library of Australia. I wouldn't even consider creating these redirects as they serve no purpose. All this one does is give birth year. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) That would be agreeable if Jr. is notable enough for his own article. Since Jr. has yet to attain notability, then the redirects should remain as they are. If someday Jr. attains notability, an article can easily be created from the Lou Ferrigno Jr. redirect.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information, AussieLegend: there's also "Louis, Jr. was a linebacker for the University of Southern California Trojans football team." No one is arguing there's a lot of information, but there's more than just a birthdate. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just demonstrates how a redirect would be undesirable. The average reader isn't going to scour an entire section to find information on an individual who isn't the subject of the section and especially not the article. We have a mere 17 words out of 295 in the section that refer to the son and they're obscure, 73% of the way into the section. This isn't really enough to justify a redirect. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine. I agree that this is a plausible search term and that this person is unlikely to be notable, and I think the target has just enough relevant content to be useful (contrary to AussieLegend's !vote, the section also contains the sentence "Louis, Jr. was a linebacker for the University of Southern California Trojans football team."). Refining to the section strikes me as sufficient to avoid the confusion that the nominator mentions as a possibility. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my response to AussieLegend above.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Lou Ferrigno#Personal life per BDD. Plausible search term that is unlikely to be notable enough for own article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:46, 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.

Sterling Ban[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, default to delete since there is agreement that the current target is untenable. Deryck C. 12:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No utility. "Ban" is not an abbreviation for bank, nor is it a common misspelling. MB 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Once you get past all the search results relating to NBA's ban of Donald Sterling, there are a very small number of relevant hits but with the exception of one advertorial that appeared in a few newspapers, all of them seem to be OCR errors or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, it should be a redirects here hatnote to point to the other choices including Sterling Bank. There might be folks who think Sterling Bancorp might be spelled Sterling Ban Corp. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Donald Sterling#Racist remarks and lifetime ban as much more likely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose someone might think that the company is sometimes known by this name (Intel Corp. is known as Intel, The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. is known as Dun & Bradstreet, etc.), but in the absence of any substantial evidence of anyone making that mistake (seven Google results for "sterling ban corp," only four of which are in English), and the possibility of confusion with the Donald Sterling affair, this does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Donald Sterling#Racist remarks and lifetime ban per UnitedStatesian, and hatnote to current topic. Seems reasonable enough to think that the "corp" is short for corporation in the name and can be dropped. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:48, 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_October_25&oldid=1036306873"