Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2019.

First-degree scholar[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) 04:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that these terms are equivalent. The target makes no mention of the term, and a machine translation of the Chinese-language Wikipedia article did not mention this phrase either. A list of ranks at Imperial examination#Degree types does not include this phrase either, nor does it list Juren in a position where "first-degree scholar" would be an obvious synonym. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unhelpful redirect. Not mentioned at the target, and the nominator's commendable research has not turned up a better target. It's not even clear what it refers to. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 7 June 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.

GSA Abstracts with Programs[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) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Abstracts with Programs" is not mentioned at all in the target. The only use case that I can think of is if somebody saw this phrase in a paper or somewhere and didn't know what GSA referred to. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point? If they typed in the search term and landed on the current target, they will quickly learn what the initialism stands for. signed, Rosguill talk 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they search for "GSA Abstracts with Programs" (a publication cited at least 106 times on Wikipedia under various names), then they'll know it's published by the Geological Society of America. It could be probably be mentioned in text somehow, on a section related to GSA conferences, sure, but WP:NOTFINISHED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems that everybody can agree that the only meaning of "GSA Abstracts with Programs" is the journal published by the Geological Society of America, so there is no confusion to worry about. Tag as {{R from journal}}. Deryck C. 11:09, 11 June 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.

Full Disclosure Report: Piecing Together Jigsaw[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) 22:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, based on internet searches it seems that the title refers to a fake documentary included as a bonus feature with the uncut edition of the first Saw film. I would suggest either deletion, or redirecting it to the first Saw film. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 30 May 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.

Cepal[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 keep, considering previous discussion quoted by Anypodetos. Deryck C. 11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 30 May 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.

Iterative for loop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Iterative for loop

Absolute number[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. Looking through all the comments, disambiguation seems to be the most supported outcome. Deryck C. 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect by disruptive editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. We could probably use a blue link at this title, given that the phrase is widely used to contrast with percentages, proportions, etc. in statistics. However I cannot immediately find a good target for that but then I'm generally poor at finding articles of that sort. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. thefreedictionary.com gives a bizarre definition but then quotes sources where the term generally means "quantity rather than proportion". Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on that distinction. Although I found one unreliable source for absolute number meaning absolute value, the current redirect is misleading and we'd be better leaving the reader to search. If we must keep it, retarget to Quantity. Certes (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess, the "bizarre definition" (as "a number represented by numerals rather than by letters") is (wrongly?) inspired by "absolute constant" defined as "a constant (as π) that has the same value wherever it occurs in mathematics". We mathematicians often interpret "absolute constant" (also called "numerical constant") as a constant that may be chosen as not dependent on anything. (For instance, it is true that "a bounded function is bounded by a constant", and "the sine function is bounded by an absolute constant", but it is false that "a bounded function is bounded by an absolute constant" (since the bound must depend on the function). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...or possibly computing (8 is an absolute number; BITS_PER_BYTE isn't) but I've never seen that term anywhere and I doubt that the concept deserves an article. Certes (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree: neither article nor redirect. But I bother about "widely used ... in statistics" (according to Thryduulf). Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "absolute number" (quoted!) gives about 3,000,000 results; the first: The Absolute Number of Oligodendrocytes in the Adult Mouse Brain. Notable? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to a new section in Relative change and difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we could replace it by a disambiguation page pointing to absolute value, absolute error, absolute difference, absolute pseudoprime, and absolute scale? All of those are numbers, with quite different meanings, that someone might be looking for by using the phrase "absolute number". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No canonical target. Not every phrase someone might think of linking needs to come up blue. It's probably better that it come up red, so that the author realizes it shouldn't be linked at all, but (if necessary) glossed inline. --Trovatore (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to follow David Eppstein's suggestion to disambiguate. I essentially have no math knowledge beyond secondary education, so the redirect initially looked fine to me, though I can certainly see that that's not the case now. Let's accommodate readers like me, and the many that, I'm sure, have even less mathematical knowledge! --BDD (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how does it "accomodate you" to have a link to a dismabig page? With a few exceptions, links to disambig pages are bad things. It's true that someone will get around to looking at the link and perhaps directing it to some target, but a better solution would be to rewrite the text itself so that either doesn't include the confusing phrase "absolute number", or else explains it inline. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. David suggested a disambiguation page at Absolute number. That doesn't mean we link to it; as you noted, we would rarely want to do so. If the point is that there are no topics that could at all be properly called "absolute number", I might be amenable to letting the search engine handle this. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I just don't see any great advantage to having a disambiguation page here. Disambiguation pages are for multiple well-defined things that share the same name, not just to have a page titled by a common phrase. The fact that a phrase is commonly used is not a good reason to have a page at that title. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate if you spend time with people that left high school a while ago, and don't remember long division, they could very well refer to absolute values as asbolute numbers. You won't find many reliable source calling absolute values absolute numbers of course (some exist [1], depending on what you accept as 'reliable'), but you'll find this on random forums, facebook posts, or every day conversations. But it can also refer to certain measurements, or specific quantifications of stuff ([2], [3]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see a rationale for having a page at the title "absolute number". Yes, people use the phrase a lot, as you've documented. But why does that mean we shouldn't just delete the redirect? Disambiguation pages are to navigate between notable things that we want to have articles about and that share the same name, not because a name exists and we want a page there. --Trovatore (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disambiguation page serve the purpose of directing the reader to what they were looking for. Someone that searches for "absolute number" could search for a lot of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • For which we have a search engine, when you search for a term we don't have a page for. Pages should not exist just to fulfill a dictionary-like function; they should exist to help navigate between encyclopedic topics. --Trovatore (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"For which we have a search engine/dictionaries" search engines and dictionaries are not what's proposed here. That's one of the main reason why we have disambiguation pages is to help people find what they are looking for. Search for 'absolute number' on Wikipedia and you won't anything useful as a search result. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to document ordinary usage of language. It's on the edge of "original research" to do so. Disambiguation pages are to help people find what they're looking for — if that thing is something that we would naturally write about. I don't think that "absolute numbers" are in that category. --Trovatore (talk) 01:23, 1 June 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.

Pentium V[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) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention "Pentium V" except in the title of one citation, and searching online seems to suggest that all coverage of Pentium V was speculations about a new generation of Intel processors in 2003. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find a more relevant target. signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I added "Pentium V" to the article based on the content in that reference. If there are other relevant references I'd urge you to add them to the article (or at least note them here so that others can). - PaulT+/C 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there risk of confusion with the actual successor to the Pentium 4, namely Intel Core 2? This reminds me of the problem with iPhone 9 (see its RfD). --BDD (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transform into dab page. Target page is clear that this was a planned successor to Pentium 4, sometimes called Pentium V. If there are other potential successors that could have been expected to be called that, then they should be listed in dab page format. Place Clichy (talk) 23:01, 30 May 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.

Eastern Catholic (disambiguation)[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) 05:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unneeded and confusing redirect. Should be deleted per WP:UNNATURAL. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'll defend the occasional "(disambiguation)" link to a page that's not a formal disambiguation page, but that's really not what's going on here. Eastern Catholic itself redirects to the same place, so this is not needed, and more misleading than helpful. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term Eastern Catholic is not ambiguous and the present redirect is not useful. Place Clichy (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete G8: the target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:25, 1 June 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.

333/106[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 Approximations of π. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly close approximation; the target seems to mention 355/113. Editor was blocked for disruption; that does not mean individual edits are necessarily disruptive, but, that's usually the way to bet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps redirect to Approximations of π, rather than Milü. The current target article is about two particular approximations of π, 22/7 and 335/113. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number is referenced in the animated image present in the article, but that doesn't mean it is a good target. I don't have an opinion on this target, I am only pointing out that it *is* mentioned at the current target, just not in the text directly. - PaulT+/C 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC) The term is also mentioned several times at Continued fraction#Continued fraction expansions of π. - PaulT+/C 20:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:50, 30 May 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.

Full translation of the Behistun Inscription[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 10#Full translation of the Behistun Inscription

Hybrid (Marvel Comics) (disambiguation)[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 deleted per criterion WP:G7 by Fastily, at the request of Steel1943. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer useful. Was a technical redirect to Hybrid (Marvel Comics) but we now have articles on multiple Marvel characters of that name. Certes (talk) 10:06, 30 May 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.

Ctrl-left[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) 05:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing redirect from antonym that is not mentioned in the target article. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this the same thing as Alt-left? Ctrl-left has varying definitions (probably depending on the writer's politics). Certes (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: At first I was going to congratulate whomever made this redirect based on a pun because I assumed this was vandalism, but then I checked the history. Feminist created this and are an established user, so now I am genuinely confused? What is it's purpose? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "ctrl-left" has seen some usage, both by commentators writing about the alt-right such as Chris Whiting and Maajid Nawaz, as well as within alt-right communities. I am not sure if there is sufficient coverage to include a mention of "ctrl-left" in an article, or if the current content on Alt-right#"Alt-left" is useful enough for this to be kept as a redirect. feminist (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO that corresponds neither to the alt-right nor "alt-left". If the term catches on beyond the one commentator and the other citing him, we can revisit this. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BDD. If it is a pun by a single commentator, then it cannot be treated as established enough usage for a redirects. Even more so if there would be several incompatible meanings from several single commentators. Place Clichy (talk) 23:11, 30 May 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.

Chasten Buttigieg[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. WP:SNOW keep. Invalid deletion rationale, any redirect may be converted into an article at any time by editing it. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this redirect should be deleted and a new page should be created for chasten buttigieg. Can't seem to create a page for Chasten Buttigieg while it is redirecting to Pete Buttigieg Afunnnyworld (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The existence of the redirect doesn't stop anyone from creating an article over it, and for new users even makes it easier. However, this already used to be an article, but after extensive discussion about a month ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasten Buttigieg) – it was decided to turn it into a redirect. Afunnnyworld, I think you should read through this discussion and consider writing an article only if there has been a very substantial change in the circumstances. – Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Uanfala here. No need to delete at the very least. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:16, 30 May 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_May_30&oldid=1138582860"