Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2014.

Saddle (landform)

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) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A saddle has a broader meaning than a col and should be expanded into an article; the redirect causes interwiki problems for languages that do not have a word for col. Yecril (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2014 (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.

Χλωρος

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) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
t
Comment It was the greenness of it I was wondering about. Of course Chloroform is (ain't it?) and Chlorophyll and so on: but Chlorine isn't 'particularly green: in fact I think it only is when it makes a compound of oxide: but others should probably know better. The form of mustard gas in the first world war for example? It is not especially green (or Greek!). An English speaker would not immediately associate chloro- with green in the way, say, they might do with verdigris? Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2014 (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.

About:wikipedia

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. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

WP:XNR to Wikipedia internal documentation, when we have an article about Wikipedia called Wikipedia. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as harmless; Since Internet Explorer and someother browsers have the about URI scheme it seems a reasonably likely search term. Incorrect, yes, but likely. Stats show it gets about one or two hits a day: which usually I and others might regard as "below noise level" but since this is schemed like that, and probably only gnomers and techhies do it and just slip, I see no harm in it: I could see myself doing it. Were it target to article space, I should think differently. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way 65.94 glad to have you back. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, thx? It was only a day or two. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, but you see what mayhem has ensued in your absence? Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (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.

HEAT

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. There wasn't enough substantial discussion, especially evidence offered, as to whether the status quo of the warhead as
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was appropriate or not. With over 150 incoming links for the warhead, it at least meets one of the specified criteria. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Heat (disambiguation). Just what I think. Just leave the above sample unedited, I don't want to get edit tagged. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "edit tagged" means, but there's no reason to obfuscate links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Comment. I have actually worked designing and testing high-explosive anti-tank warheads, but the were not called this. All defence/defense industries (indeed any industry, but it seems endemic in defense/defence) are replete with these acronyms. I agree with your about the obfuscation, but what are you suggesting we do with it? Delete it? Redirect it to heat (disambiguation)? Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: When I said obfuscation, I was referring to the fact that he deliberately misfiled this request (which I have since fixed). I wasn't referring to the redirect itself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Keep per Jack. There is a naughty child who has found a new toy in the toybox. Si Trew (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Edit tagged" means an edit filter will catch me, and I do not want that.The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more popular is an argument for disambiguation, since slightly more popular does not make a primary topic - that would require way more popular. Not to mention that you need to count everyone looking for heat. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to
    T
    03:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
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.

Luk skyawlker

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. I searched in vain for a snappy Vader quote to use here, but suffice to say multiple typos make this an implausible search term. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely unlikely misspelling, brought to you by the same user who created Set hMickfarland. Delete. - Eureka Lott 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely Luk skalker was the companion of made mariette? I have all the stickers. Si Trew (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tagged is {{R from misspelling}} which will keep it out of search results and other areas it doesn't belong. This spelling is actually quite likely (imagine some guy typing quickly misss (see what I did there?) the "e") and there really is no good reason to delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the missing e was the only error, I'd agree with you, but there are two other errors: the s isn't capitalized, and the w and a are reversed. It all adds up to one big mess. - Eureka Lott 22:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feed to the Sarlacc (Delete) There's just too many misspellings to justify the redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while I would claim "Luk" to be very likely misspelling (trust me, native English speakers, much more likely then you would ever think), the "skyawlker" part makes me think this redirect will never be usefully triggered. P.S.: apparently, it is linked off-site, as appears from looking at stats, though this time I would prefer forcing the traffic source to fix its link, not keeping this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:28, 30 May 2014 (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.

Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University

Lyon Smith

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) 16:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He voiced in this animated tv show doesn't mean he should be redirected to that article. UBStalk 11:53, 26 May 2014 (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.

Demographics of San Francisco

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. No
WP:RFD#DELETE reason to delete. Clearly a potentially useful redirect that targets to a relevant section. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think people will search with this title. They will go to main article first. This redirect in unnecessary maybe. UBStalk 11:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect is clearly useful. Currently, the redirect targets a section in the article, San Francisco#Race and ethnicity, which seems to be the best target to direct a reader if they are trying to locate demographic information for the city of San Francisco. No one benefits from this redirect's deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Is not marked {{R to section}} but that is easily fixed if we get consensus to keep. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2014 (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.

O21

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#O21

Doors

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 Door. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatic that any copyeditor bluelinking to

doors wishes to link to The Doors, should instead link to door (disambiguation) so dabbot will automatically alert editor that they have linked to an ambiguous redirect. In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply
]

I'd be fine with that outcome also In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Retarget Me too. Stats are not too helpful here since we don't really know what people are looking for, we only know what they end up with: for all we know they might want timber merchant. I'd be inclined to keep (I am neither a huge fan of the band, nor against them, but it seems a likely target) but who knows? We don't.
It would be nice somehow if we could track how quickly people click away from the article when they accidentally hit the wrong target. Until that happy day arrives then we have to second-guess, and I am with the above. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A look at the incoming links shows that the vast majority of people who link to "Doors" are intending to link to the band. We're setting ourselves up for a lot of misplaced links if we redirect "Doors" to "door". No need to fix something that ain't broke. Dohn joe (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    primary topic; it just proves that editors let those redirect links be since it guided them to the correct topic, and asserts no level of notability over other subjects that could be referred to by the same title. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, what it shows is that it is
    Doors actually links to - shows that the band is actually the more plausible link. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm still not convinced, but that doesn't mean that others agree with me. We'll have to see how this discussion plays out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fact doesn't assess how the term "Doors" usually refers to the band "The Doors"; that just proves that 115 versions of Wikipedia have an article about the band. On that note, I would imagine that even more have an article about the "door" structure, given that the majority of societies use them in one way or another. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have put it better. I know
WP:RS]: The three pillars. sometimes we fail but we might find two out of three, cross our fingers and hope that another editor finds the last. Doe has not managed to find any; Steel has; I found some the other day not the best but better than nothing, and added them here. As John Maynard Keynes said, or rather is misquoted as saying "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" Si Trew (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, what have I not found - what am I supposed to be looking for here? Dohn joe (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that say that "Doors" are more likely than "The Doors", or the other way around. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we exclude Tubular Bells from this (with that particular capitalization) just to make it simpler? Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2014 (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.

Wishes

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 Wish as {{R from plural}}. This represents a clear consensus supported by lack of persuasive evidence that Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams is the primary topic. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatic that any copyeditor bluelinking to

wishes wishes to link to Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams, should instead link to wishes (disambiguation) so dabbot will automatically alert editor that they have linked to an ambiguous redirect. In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply
]

Likewise as nom would also support that outcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't want to patronise you, but you asked me to reply, so I shall: we have {{
WP:PROMO and so on. And it's a bit misleading: It's like redirecting John Doe to User:Dohn joe, or something like that. Our task, I thought, was to help readers find the information they are looking for. I realise I am in a minority on that, but I shall continue to say so. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Generally speaking, it is proper for a plural to redirect to a singular. However, it is common practice on WP that when a topic uses a plural form, that plural form can establish an independent
Wishes has pointed to the Disney topic since 2009, so it seems to have been working well in this case, too. Can't say that I'd ever heard of the topic before, but my intuition is not the test. Apparently our readers are looking for the Disney topic when they search for the plural "Wishes". Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Retarget to
    primary topic; it just proves that editors let those redirect links be since it guided them to the correct topic, and asserts no level of notability over other subjects that could be referred to by the same title. Lastly, in my particular case, if I looked up the term "Wishes", I would actually not be sure what I'm looking for, and the current target isn't even in my top five ideas of what I would be looking for; in fact, I did not even know about the existence of the subject of the current redirect target until this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, what it shows is that it is
    Wishes actually links to - shows that the band is actually the more plausible link. The question is not what you in particular would look for if you were to search for "wishes" - the question is what have our actual editors and readers shown us that they are looking for. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What a strange case. If we did decide the fireworks show were the primary topic, which seems unlikely, it should really just be moved to this title per
    WP:SUBTITLE. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Indeed. So in what sence is "turnstiles" different from "turnstile". It could to go Turnstile (song) or Turnstile (album) but you didn't propose that. And mutatis mutandis, the others. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    T
    03:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
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/2014_May_26&oldid=1138579787"