Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2019.

Receptor 1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 12#Receptor 1

0,9[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 the first to 0.9, delete the rest. This is a difficult close, but discussions don't stay open for over a month because they're low-hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked!
There was an even numerical split regarding 0,9, with no one advocating an outright keep, so a no-action "no consensus" would clearly serve no one. I took seriously the concern that 0.9 is an actual title, and would not properly be called 0,9 in some languages (in fact, it's a French work, and the French would write the number "0,9"!). Still, the redirect is just as plausible as a typo, and general guidelines tell us not to resort to deletion when there are reasonable alternatives.
There were majorities to delete the remaining three redirects. Here we must balance that .9 does not actually equal 1 and trying to discern readers' intent, i.e., how many 9s do we expect them to type? Without any clearly invalid arguments, I find for the delete voters. This is rough enough that revisiting the issue would not be inappropriate, though since we already had quite a good deal of discussion here, I would strongly recommend giving it some time. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are wrong formula, 0.9 is not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget 0,9 to 0.9 as a plausible typo. Keep the rest as the lead explicitly states "This number is equal to 1.". Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This number is equal to 1 means 0.999...=1, but not 0.9=1. --B dash (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but everyone searching for "0.9=1" is clearly looking for the target article which explains that it's 0.999... that =1 not 0.9 so it will correct any misnomers they have. Redirects don't have to be correct, these are probably best tagged with {{R from misnomer}} or something like that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as misleading. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget 0,9 to 0.9, this is a plausible typo since many cultures use the comma instead of the decimal. Keep the rest. Since the target is such an abstract topic without an obvious name, there are several plausible ways to try to figure out what the article title may be, and I think these are reasonable guesses. While these may be the "wrong formula" (or more accurately, approximations of the repeating .9), the target explains what the correct formula is for those seeking it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget 0,9 to 0.9 and delete the rest. Many Europe countries use comma as decimal separator. Despite we don't have an article for 0.9 (or 9/10) the number, better than nothing to retarget to the album . And may be add another hatnote to the article. BTW the existing hatnote should marked as: 0.9, a repeating decimal. In my math book they teach to use dot on top not bar, but language description can eliminate such confusion. Matthew hk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 2019-02-11T16:56:30
  • Retarget 0,9 to 0.9, delete the rest as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support a retarget of 0,9 to 0.9. It's WP:COSTLY, and we don't have 0,8 or 0,7 or 0,6... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles for 0.8 or 0.7 or 0.6 either. We have 0.9 as article, despite not about the number. Matthew hk (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we may be getting into WP:TRAINWRECK territory here...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0,9 as redirecting to the name of an album where it's clear that it is not stylized like that, and where it would be a surprise. Weak keep 0.9=1 but delete the others since they are never formatted like that especially 1=0.9999. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If you've heard about the album, you'll know it uses a full stop rather than a comma, and if you've not heard of the album and you're looking for 9/10 with a comma, you'll expect the page to cover a number, not an album. As noted above, the rest are wrong; 0.9999 is close enough to work (you can't possibly type all of the zeroes in 0.999..., and who knows how many 9s there are in the actual title, without looking at it first), but merely one digit after the separator is too big of a difference, since someone will expect it to cover 9/10, not 10/10 written in an unusual manner. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 15:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since 0.9 (disambiguation) was created. I don't mind to take 0,9 as separate issue. First start RM to move the album away from 0.9 as it is not the primary topic in outside world and start a RM to move the disambiguation to 0.9 article title, and then discuss whatever 0,9 redirect to the disambiguation page or not. It still trainwreck of why 0.9 (disambiguation) existed and why not 0.8, 0.7 or 0.6. Matthew hk (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, retarget 0,9 and keep the others. I think Tavix and Thryduulf hit the nail on the head and are very convincing: 0,9 is, however you slice it, a very reasonable typo to make, and the others, while obviously not accurate, could never be mistaken for anything else. That's all we need for redirects, so let's make use of 'em. Not sold on the disambiguation. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 5 March 2019 (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.

Bassena[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 5#Bassena

Nurse /album)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely punctuation typo. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, it's from a page move. I'll tag it as such. --Geolodus (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to Nurse (Therapy album). This was an obvious error corrected two days after the article was created in 2003, but we should be keeping the edit history around for attribution (as it is not recorded in the history of the present article), and the obvious way to do that is to move it to a useful title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was a page move actually performed? There's nothing in the logs, and the creation of the article predates the redirect. There is nothing significant in the edit history so I'm not sure what exactly we ought to be preserving. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, the correct location would be Nurse (Therapy? album). PC78 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right about Nurse (Therapy? album), I misread the article. Page moves didn't get recorded in the history of both source and destination titles until a couple of years after this move happened - according to Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page histories the change happened in MediaWiki version 1.5, MediaWiki version history notes that was released in October 2005. This means that the edit history of this redirect is the only place the page move is attributed, so it needs to be kept for license compliance. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also oppose moving the redirect. It's a clear error, and there is no need to preserve error—in fact, it would be clearer from a history perspective to simply leave the redirect alone over making pointless moves. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping leftover typo move from the 2003 move to Nurse (album). The (album) has been around for a while, no recent renames, and is primary topic. If you want to create Nurse (Therapy album) or Nurse (Therapy? album), you could but they would be unnecessary disambiguations for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 26 February 2019 (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.

Template:Cleanup-Html[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) 11:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused for tagging purposes. It would be nice to standardize on {{cleanup HTML}} for instructional purposes and also to make automated parsing easier. -- Beland (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep none of those are reasons to delete a template redirect. Standardisation in instructions can be done regardless of what redirects exist. It's on AWB's template redirects list which means that any time an editor uses this for tagging (which is likely to happen given that it's been around since 2010 and many other cleanup templates are named similarly and/or have similarly named redirects) it will be replaced by the target as part of general fixes. Automatic parsers need to be written to work correctly with the wiki as it is, rather than requiring the wiki to be adjusted for the benefit of parsers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am all for standardising cleanup tags, and you have my full support to change existing occurances to canonical ones. However automated parsers need to understand template redirects, which deal with historical versions of pages, and also help with reducing the cognitive load of remembering exact names. If you are having specific problems, let us know and we may be able to help. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per the above. While it's downright wrongheaded to write "Html", or to mis-hyphenate like that, people will do it, so the redir will be [allegedly, theoretically] convenient enough to keep. It's one of those "redirects are cheap" matters, because it's not an implausible typo like "claenpu MHLT". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are no existing instances of this template, and not I'm not sure anyone has actually been using it recently or is likely to any time soon. Almost all the other cleanup templates use a space instead of a dash, and it's unnatural to capitalize only the H in HTML. There's also cognitive load for human editors in dealing with a thing that has a multiplicity of names, and it seems leaving this around is just encouraging gratuitous diversity of form, or maybe providing a possibility that's never actually needed. Is there any relatively way to find out when the last time this was used? "The wiki as it is" might not include this de facto. -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most likely reason for there being no transclusions of this redirect is that AWB automatically replaces them. Cognitive load is not an issue when all the forms redirect to the same target - whichever form they use will produce identical output so there is no "right" or "wrong" form. This situation is desirable because it means editors do not have to remember which form is the correct one, they can just use whichever feels most right to them and get on with improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmm, but I don't think most users actually use AWB, do they? There is certainly more cognitive load if there are a diversity of forms if you are either reading the wikitext or writing or reading code that parses it, or reading or writing instructions in which other people may use different names for the same thing. In those situations you have to understand that all the different forms mean the same thing. -- Beland (talk)
      • Also, part of the reason that variant wasn't in use was that editors actually fixed all the tagged articles, and all the currently tagged articles have been tagged by me in the past week or so. -- Beland (talk)
        • You misunderstand how AWB works - whenever someone who does use it encounters an article that needs "general fixes" done (including bypassing template redirects like this one) then they visit the article and fix it. It doesn't matter who added the template redirect to the article. Your comment about all the errors being fixed demonstrates that this template is not causing a problem for the encyclopaedia, it's not an argument in favour of deletion. I've explained above how there is no additional cognitive load for users, instructions do not need to mention non-canonical variants whether they exist or not so this redirect is irrelevant to that and introduces no additional cognitive load on anybody. In fact it reduces cognitive load as it doesn't require people to remember the exact format of the string and logical variants work as they intended - this is a Good Thing. People who write parsers for wikitext (or read their code) must deal with the encyclopaedia as it exists, we do not make life harder for human editors to make it easier for bots or parsers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know how AWB works; there's just no particular reason to expect an AWB user would encounter every instance of a template alias before any other editor sees it or before the next database dump happens. I can see the argument you're making; I guess it just comes down to a difference in design philosophy. One approach to make things easy to remember is to make only one way to do things, and that way is easily guessed because it's consistent across tools. The opposite approach is to make a bunch of different ways of doing something and let people pick the one they like. I happen to find the second approach messy and confusing, but if there's no consensus on that, then oh well. I'm probably not going to bother supporting this unused redirect in my code. -- Beland (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2019 (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/2019_February_24&oldid=887459467"