Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2013

Anglo-American playing card[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 and retarget, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pagehistory has some very old content which was later merged to other pages. In order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA, the page must be kept. That said, I see the potential confusion since the two capitalization variants point to different destinations. I think the correct target should be Standard 52-card deck. The versions of the redirect to playing card (and there are several in history) always pointed to a sub-section. That subsection now lists Standard 52-card deck as the "main article" for the subsection. I think pointing directly to the main article would be most helpful to readers. There's not a bad choice, though, since both pages are well cross-linked. Be bold and make the change. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard 52-card deck per Rossami. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2013 (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.

Gastrointestinal Tract[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 and retarget, respectively. Based on the pages' histories, it doesn't appear either of them were ever standalone articles, though this does not preclude someone from overwriting Gastrointestinal tract with a broader article and retargeting Gastrointestinal Tract there. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2013 (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.

Geography of the Republic of Ireland[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 and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A contentious one, but I think anyone searching for/linking to this title will be looking for detailed info on geography, which can be found at the Geography of Ireland article. Retarget it there. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. The "Geography of" part of the title is more compelling than the current political segregations and more likely to be the reader's intended destination. It helps that Geography of Ireland already has a subsection titled "Political and human geography" with the two political divisions color-coded. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography of Ireland. Republic of Ireland#Geography treats this as its "main article", and we ought to redirect specific search terms like these to more specific articles whenever possible. The presence of that hatnote also suggests redirecting to geography of Ireland would be in keeping with the consensus at the Republic of Ireland article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 6 July 2013‎
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.

Visible Light[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 and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the light article is displaying WP:Systematic bias... it really should be more generalized. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change Light This seems like a discussion that belongs in an article talk page, not in RFD. Be aware that there is a long history here, with changes over time in the way these articles relate to one another. There are discussions in the talk pages (and archives) of both of the pages to which you link. As presently constructed, Light is specifically about visible light, and is the appropriate target for the redirect. Visible spectrum discusses features of the spectrum itself. There have been several proposals to merge the two articles, which were rejected. --Srleffler (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted my !vote–I just now realized that there were two redirects, with different capitalization, pointing to different articles. This does not require an RfD to fix. I have adjusted them both to point to Light, based on the consensus so far. --Srleffler (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light, of course. When one wants to refer to the spectrum, s/he refers to spectrum. I suppose that Srleffler still misses the point… Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light. Having different redirects based on case is nonsensical. Actually, having separate articles on visible light and visible spectrum is nonsensical as well, but I guess that's beyond the scope of this poll. Zueignung (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light for both, per the common meaning of the word "light" being "visible electromagnetic radiation". We can deal with the merge of visible spectrum into light another day. -- The Anome (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light. Although, I do respect what User:Srleffler is saying, I think the logical target for both redirects is Light. As a an aside, I don't agree that two main space articles should be merged. As Srleffler pointed out there are enough distinctions between the two articles to merit separate articles. This became apparent to me after reading both of the them. Also, former proposals for merger have been rejected.--Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2013 (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.

Direct Realism[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 naïve realism. Rossami (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2013 (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.

Homo sapiens sapiens[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 and retarget, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (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.

History of Western philosophy[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 and retarget, respectively, and both pointing to the #Western philosophy section. This does seem like a case where the redirect should be overwritten by an article, however. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other someone should split out an article on that. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Western philosophy page is relatively thin. And given that page's history, it's likely to stay that way, I think. The History of philosophy page already has an extensive section specifically on the history of Western philosophy. And while I could see the potential of that section maybe someday becoming a stand-alone page, I don't see that happening immediately. In the meantime, readers will be best served by a section-retarget to History of philosophy#Western philosophy. Rossami (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of philosophy#Western philosophy per Rossami. This is contingent on the current depth of each article and doesn't reflect what target would be best in an encyclopedia composed entirely of perfect articles, but at the moment this should point to the article with the greatest level of detail on the topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (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.

Arts and crafts[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 leave different. There is a strong precedent that capitalization variant redirects should point to the same target page, however that is a precedent, not an absolute rule. Arms & Hearts makes a compelling argument in this case that the capitalization makes the second a proper noun and thus that a different target is justified. No counter-arguments were offered.
Implied but not explicitly mentioned here was the option to retarget the proper noun version to Arts & Crafts (disambiguation). I do not consider the other uses sufficiently notable to justify the deviation from the primary meaning. That is an ordinary-editor choice, though - not part of the RfD closure.
Even though this discussion was thinly attended, I am going to exercise discretion and close it with the decision to allow different destinations. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you forgot about Arts & Crafts and arts & crafts -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as we disambiguate by capitalization, the current situation is a result of that, with the generic being lowercase, targetting the general article, while the specific is using uppercase to target the movement ; personally, I would replace all four with the disambiguation page (perhaps as arts & crafts). -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as they are. WP:NATURAL permits article titles which differ only in capitalisation, and here we have one target which is a proper noun (so a suitable target for the capitalised search term) and one which isn't (so suitable for the uncapitalised one). I've retargeted arts & crafts to handicraft (it previously pointed to the dab page) but if anyone feels that redirect is implicitly part of this RfD and so shouldn't be changed until this is closed then feel free to revert. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2013 (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.

Feudal Society[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 and retarget, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems like all this is suffereing from WP:Systematic bias by considering only European feudalism (and medieval feudalism at that) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manorialism is apparently an "element of feudal society", while feudalism is the system under which feudal society exists. Regarget to Feudalism. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feudalism. Manorialism is a subordinate concept and not a logical destination for the broader concept of a "feudal society". Rossami (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2013 (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.

Logical Fallacy[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 both to Formal fallacy. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This whole set of articles is a mess and looks to be in need of reorganisation. For now, retarget to the dab page. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have expected both to redirect to Fallacy, which has a prominent link to the dab page at the top. I find it problematic to be redirecting one term to a dab page for a different term. If this is a (relatively) common occurrence, then I object; if it's not, then let's not encourage it. - dcljr (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formal fallacy. The lede of the fallacy article defines a formal fallacy as one resulting from improper logic and an informal fallacy as one unrelated to logic, and mathematical fallacy's second paragraph specifies that it uses a different meaning of the word "fallacy", so unless my logic is fallacious it follows that "logical fallacy" is a synonym for "formal fallacy" and ought to redirect to that article. Redirecting to fallacy or the dab page would be correct but not as precise as they might be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Formal fallacy per Arms & Hearts. That is the most precise answer (though that target should probably be better cross-linked to the other proposed targets in case that's not exactly what the reader needed – I'll add a hatnote in anticipation of the redirect). Rossami (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to Formal fallacy, although redirection to Fallacy is not much of a problem. — |J~Pæst|  20:35, 15 July 2013 (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.

Un-word of the year (Germany)[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 to delete. That said, there is also not a clear consensus whether to keep as-is or to reverse the pagemove. I find the arguments to keep as is to be stronger but consider that an ordinary-editor conclusion and not part of the closure. "No consensus to delete" is sufficient for now - the rest of the debate can be resumed on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was originally created with an unnecessary disambiguation, in analogy to Word of the year (Germany), where the dab is necessary. However, the selection of un-words is apparently unique to Germany. Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important addendum: I just saw on German Wikipedia that there is a Swiss de:Unwort des Jahres (Schweiz), too, but we don't have an article about it. If you feel that my page move was premature, feel free to undo it, create Un-word of the year (Switzerland) and turn Un-word of the year into a disambiguation page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether page move was “premature” or not, you definitely should recall WP:Redirect#KEEP point 4. Throwing a “Delete vote” in such circumstances demonstrates an incompetent deletionism. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until Un-word of the year (Switzerland) will be created. Cavarrone 08:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rather, restore page at original title). When I created the article, I wanted to show right in the title that the topic is strictly Germany-centered, and does not have any universal claim. This is why I chose Un-word of the year (Germany) as page title, and not Un-word of the year. Indeed, I was following the page names at the German Wikipedia, being aware that there was a Swiss counterpart. Though not being named "un-word", the American Dialect Society also picks an equivalent in their Word of the Year choices, in the categories "Most Unnecessary", "Most Outrageous" or "Most Euphemistic". Please note that this discussion initiated by Florian Blaschke is more about the page title. Even if consensus should show that the page is not to be moved back, the redirect should be kept, because several other Wikipedia articles link to it.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without another article by the same name, (Germany) is not a disambiguator; we don't use parenthetical terms just to give more information about the topic. There are literally thousands of articles whose title lengths could be artificially lengthened by such practices, to the ultimate detriment of our readers. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A plausible alternative title, as evidenced by the above argument that it ought to be the title of the article; not misleading; WP:R#KEEP #4 applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2013 (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/2013_June_28&oldid=1090409394"