Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2020.

IRC +10414[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#IRC +10414

Ram Lalla[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Ram Lalla

Galois axis[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 and salt. Keep !votes appear to have been exclusively socks with no histories of contribution, with a clear consensus for deletion and salting from everyone else. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term Galois axis, seems to be novel, only appearing outside Wikipedia in one conference proceedings.[1] The target MacCullagh ellipsoid has had a long running dispute with one editor trying to add the Galois axis term.

There are two related AFD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galois axis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacCullagh ellipsoid. -- Salix alba (talk): 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A unpublished paper whose sole reference to the Galois axis term, is the conference paper mentioned above. --Salix alba (talk): 18:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually contains references another paper about the Galois axis https://science.urfu.ru/en/publications/%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5-%D1%8D%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0 46.242.9.44 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite new but highly important concept, based on the second memoir of the last letter of Galois, as explained in the second source listed above. 85.143.106.68 (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that this is a "highly important concept", as all sources appear to be extremely obscure. No objections against salting. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Melvin Kiernan wrote concerning the second and third memoirs of Galois' last letter: «The outline-of this material in the letter was very sketchy, and did not influence later Mathematics». He was wrong and so is Kusma 46.242.8.96 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC). Here is another conference paper http://engjournal.ru/articles/1960/1960.pdf#page=6 and the relevance of Galois' last letter is exposed here http://pca.pdmi.ras.ru/2016/abstracts_files/PCA2016SA.pdf 46.242.8.96 (talk)[reply]

Cocorector is invited by Salix alba to contribute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cocorrector but he/she was blocked by Ivanvcector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cocorrector 46.242.9.153 (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salt as there is no evidence anybody not connected to Semjon Adlaj has ever used the term, and based on the long-term promotional edits pointed out by the IP above me. —Kusma (t·c) 12:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the "argument" above is invalid. All scientists writing about some concept are scientifically-connected, so what? Or is it some other kind of connection? Do you have a proof before you express your opinion twice? 2A02:2168:B01:5EA2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2020 (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.

Vakıflar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Vakıflar

Iron disulfide redirects[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 Iron sulfide. It looks like there's additional cleanup needed as far as the related pages FeS2, Iron Sulfide and Iron(II) sulfide are concerned. Pinging participants InvalidOS, Ivanvector, Peter James and Kusma, as they will be better equipped to take care of that than I would. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirect to different targets despite referring to the same substance. We could maybe retarget them to FeS2, or just create another disambiguation page, even though the contents would be practically identical to FeS2. InvalidOStalk 18:19, 12 August 2020 (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.

Bia Angkor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Bia Angkor

Ploo (TV series)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without a mention in the article, this redirect is confusing. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Ploo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2020 (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.

Vectaerovenator[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) 2pou (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name for a new dinosaur, but the paper describing it has yet to be published so the article was turned into a redirect per WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS. The current redirect target is incorrect because that list is for informal names, nicknames and the like, not for proposed new species. An editor keeps reinserting the animal in the list, despite it not meeting the inclusion criteria, because this redirect exists. We now have a circular argument: this redirect is justified by the entry in the list, which must be there because of this redirect. In fact, we should delete the redirect and wait until the paper is published, at which point we can have an article again. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it is a name, but it has not been formally published, then it is not a formal name. If it is not a formal name, then it is an informal name. That is not controversial. A number of once informal names have since become formal. The article specifically cites that names used in press but not formally published are welcome on this list. Yes, it is unusual that the press is reporting on a study that has not been published yet, but is due to be published soon. However, the University of Southampton itself identifies that the taxon has been described in as-of-yet unpublished manuscript (‘A highly pneumatic ‘mid Cretaceous’ theropod from the British Lower Greensand’), making it currently a nomen manuscriptum (the second bullet point criteria in the lede). It also meets the third bullet point criteria as listed in the article, and your only argument against that rests on a subjective sense that this not-formal name does not meet the criteria for 'nickname' or 'descriptive name'. However, since neither term has a particularly specific definition that we can point to, your opposition is not robust there. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there is a misunderstanding what an informal name is. In zoology, these are called "unavailable names", as defined by the code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which is the authority we have to follow. This newly proposed name is unavailable by this definition, thus the redirect to the article of informal names is correct. --Jens Lallensack (talk)
  • Keep. There's a long precedent on Wikipedia for having redirects to informally-named fossils, whether nomina manuscriptum or nomina nuda. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Zigongosaurus1138 If it ... has not been formally published, then it is not a formal name. If it is not a formal name, then it is an informal name. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure this should have been created to begin with, but it is probably a manner of days before the animal is formally named, so deleting it now would be pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2020 (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.

Operation Thunderwell[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should have been bundled with previous RfD. Delete for the reasons outlined there, mostly since this is no-longer discussed at the article. A7V2 (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pining the two registered users other than myself to participate in the previous RfD: @Shhhnotsoloud and Narky Blert: A7V2 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My rationale in the previous RFD applies here also: "Not mentioned anywhere in English WP. Any reader following this redirect will find zero information." Narky Blert (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky and my previous RfD comment: without a mention in the article this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2020 (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.

Buddhism in Altai Republic and Altai Krai[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally an article created by an editor that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. It was converted to a redirect a couple times by other editors. I tagged for G5, but that was removed, so I'm nominating here. I still think that G5 applies due to the creation pattern, but it's also a hyper-specific, useless redirect on its own. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:54, 12 August 2020 (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.

Silk (Corn Stalk Part)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19#Silk (Corn Stalk Part)

Big In Taste, Small In Size[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, a Google search brings up a lot of hits besides donut holes. Hog Farm Bacon 01:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Awfully ambiguous, could refer to anything besides donut holes. CycloneYoris talk! 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search turned up numerous examples of this commonplace advertising slogan and its inverse "Small In Size, Big In Taste" for all sorts of foodstuffs; none of those on the first 3 pages being doughnut holes. Narky Blert (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2020 (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.

Communitarian socialism[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Communitarian" doesn't appear in the target, and the two terms don't seem to be synonymous (utopianism and communitarianism certainly aren't). None of the other articles that mention the term seems like a better target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Utopian socialism is more of a philosophy and history article, but there is a section about attempts to realize communitarian socialism, so I think that's not a bad redirect. Thanks to Marxist criticism of this approach to achieving socialism, in which they used the term 'utopian' in a derogatory sense, the two terms are now synonymous I think. Other similar articles are Intentional community, Commune and Egalitarian community, but most of these types of intentional communities are not explicitly socialist, and many are not socialist at all. Kibbutz is a type of communitarian socialism, but it's pretty specifically Zionist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another solution would be renaming the article "Communitarian socialism" and having a "Utopian socialism" redirect, but "Utopian socialism" is a much more widely used term, thanks to Marxist mudslinging. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Owenism lists many sources. Here are a few that might apply:

Backwoods Utopias: The Sectarian Origins and the Owenite Phase of Communitarian Socialism in America, 1663-1829 https://www.amazon.com/Backwoods-Utopias-Sectarian-Communitarian-Socialism/dp/0812210042
Citizens and Saints - Politics and Anti-Politics in Early British Socialism https://www.cambridge.org/jp/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/history-ideas/citizens-and-saints-politics-and-anti-politics-early-british-socialism?format=PB
Co-operation and the Owenite Socialist Communities in Britain, 1825–45 https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/79/1/145/60085← Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source I found via a web search seems to hit the nail on the head. "In particular, Marx and Engels associate utopian socialism with communitarian socialism, and communitarian socialism with non-violence. By ‘communitarian socialism’ I mean to designate a socialism which views the creation of intentional communities – small voluntary settlements of individuals living and working together for some common purpose–as both the means of transition to, and the final institutional form of, a socialist society. We are told, for instance, that the utopians ‘reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel’ (Marx and Engels 1976:515). In short, the complaint that the utopian socialists are ‘anti-political’ associates them with abstention of various kinds. Not least, they are said to be unwilling to engage with class struggle, government, and revolution. Since these three forms of activity are all, on the Marxian account, effective means to promoting or obtaining socialist ends, it is counterproductive and misguided for socialists to discourage workers and others from accessing them. It seems clear that this third charge – that the utopians are ‘anti-political’ – is a non-foundational one. That is, it is possible to accept that socialists should participate in politics – understood here to include engagement with class struggle, government, and revolution – and to accept that the utopian socialists failed to understand that, without thereby having a reason to abandon utopianism as such." Marx, Engels, and Some (Non-Foundational) Arguments against Utopian Socialism by D. Leopold, p. 12 https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ba0c49a8-6592-4961-9d54-3a805c564272/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=LeopoldNonFoundationalArguments.pdf&type_of_work=Book+section Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2020 (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.

Native Energy[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this redirect by moving the page to Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (Intertribal COUP) because that's what the article was about. Native Energy is an independent organization affiliated with the Intertribal Council, but they are distinct organizations. Some sources say that Intertribal COUP has a majority stake in Native Energy, but (1) I have yet to find an unambiguously reliable source that says this and (2) I don't think redirecting corporate children to their corporate parents is necessarily reasonable if they operate—like these apparently do—as distinct entities. For these reasons, I suggest deleting the redirect as misleading. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G7 and author's request (not that it's really speedy anymore given the week has passed). -2pou (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (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/2020_August_12&oldid=1047026270"