Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 4

November 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2015.

Electric Universe (physics)

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 do not delete for now; Giffyguy will write article over redirect. Der yck C. 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe (physics) → Plasma cosmology (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Remove redirect, and create separate page for Electric Universe (physics), mostly in response to the vast differences between the two hypotheses (Plasma Cosmology is a small, partial subset of the Electric Universe hypothesis, and the two hypotheses ultimately formed and diverged independently), and the large amount of more recent activity around the Electric Universe hypothesis in particular e.g. $2.2 million dollars provided by the International Science Foundation (a self-proclaimed independent third-party) to fund an unprecedented repeatable experiment which will test certain parts of the Electric Universe hypothesis, with the intent to compare the results to similar experiments being carried out by NASA using a solar satellite probe. Giffyguy (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently putting together a very basic, initial draft of what I think could be the skeleton of the Electric Universe (physics) article - in my sandbox. Giffyguy (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Giffyguy: it looks like you haven't saved your draft yet. When you're ready, you can just write it right over the redirect. Just remove the code that's there now and replace it with your work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector Thanks, I'll do that. Giffyguy (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2015 (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:4A

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 per nom. Der yck C. 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:4A → Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Little used shortcut to a humor page. Would retargeting this to WP:Four Award be a better option? sst✈^discuss 08:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom; that seems much more relevant. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:04, 04 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. There don't seem to be any extant uses of this to point to the essay (which I don't get, but whatever) and the proposed new target is both more relevant, and better serves the project. Excellent suggestion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above - Seems a better target. –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. O N R (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2015 (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:APPROX

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. I think the general RfD consensus is that Wikipedia-namespace redirects will stay as long as "someone finds it useful", there isn't a better target, and it's not blatantly wrong. Der yck C. 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:APPROX → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Well-meant but extremely poorly named shortcut to "#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates" in MOS/Dates and numbers -- see [1] and [2], apparently chosen because WP:APPROXDATE is (for unknown reasons) salted. EEng (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine any useful name that can be found. I was just trying to help out here. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redirect to the top of the page, as the question of whether "approx." should be used is answered in two sections (one for dates and the other for numbers). The alternative is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, but there's less information there. I've created WP:APPROXDATE as a redirect to the section (it isn't salted now). Peter James (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting up APPROXDATE, but I disagree re APPROX. A vague word, pointing to the top of a giant page containing many things that might be related to the vague word, is worthless as a shortcut. WP:APPROX should just be deleted. EEng (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant information is there, search results are full of irrelevant pages and may lead to incomplete information. For example, the top results for the full word are Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources and Wikipedia:Al Manhal. "APPROXDATE" is acceptable as a link but is not a word that people who don't already know the shortcut would search for. If there's another page that it could link to that doesn't just contain part of the information in the current redirect target, it could be made into a {{WP disambig}} page. Peter James (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What relevant information is where? Even the creator of APPROX agrees (see above) it should be removed, so can we not have a giant long debate on reversing an obviously poor idea? EEng (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor indicated that they do not have a preference for which redirect should be used for the shortcut, and even if they had preferred the longer title, that wouldn't be agreement for deletion of the other redirect. Peter James (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:RFD#K5 (someone finds it useful) because it doesn't seem to conflict with any other potential usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, you can't imagine any other WP policy or guideline that deals with approximation in some way? Are you kidding? EEng (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None have been suggested, and nobody created one in 14 years of Wikipedia until just yesterday. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually an argument for why creating one now is a bad idea. No one's created one in 14 years because for that entire time everyone's had common sense enough to realize that "WP:APPROX" is hopelessly vague. EEng (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But someone did create it, suggesting that someone finds this usage helpful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good sense of the million editors over 14 years outweighs the hasty ill-considered action of one editor 5 days ago. That is, if common sense is to prevail, though I have my concerns as to whether that's the criterion here. Jeesh. I'm unwatching, so you guys can keep arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. EEng (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (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.