Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26

< February 25

February 27 >

February 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2015.

Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy)

• Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy) → Idiot  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect JZCL 12:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak refine as {{R to section}} Idiot#Etymology, where its meaning in Ancient Greece is elaborated. I guess it was added because of the discussion at Talk:Idiot/Archive_1#Etymology. My WP search was for "idiot ancient Greece", so perhaps it is better to delete it so other readers' searches don't jump them through the R straight away: but the ety section is section 1, so it is hardly far from the top already. Nothing in reader-facing space links to it. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as an implausible search term. I can't see it being of use to this project. Tavix |  Talk  23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no particular reason to delete, as far as I can tell. Though it's an unlikely search term, it is not a confusing or surprising redirect. Idiot (democracy), Idiocy (democracy), Idiot (Athenian democracy and Idiocy (Athenian democracy) are all red, though, and Socratic irony ( → Irony#Socratic irony, with a {{main}} there to Socratic method) seems a jump too far. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget per Si Trew. Unlikely but not at all ambiguous search; longstanding (2009) and harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget per Si Trew. I learned something new today. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Xauxaz

• Xauxaz → Height  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Highly unlikely redirect JZCL 11:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• retarget to Lord of the Trees where it is mentioned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget. Nice find, but at proposed target that's XauXaz, and I imagine with these things the intercaps are important, so we should add that and {{R from other capitalization}} this. Where Scrabble board? Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Following the links, ****WARNING TAKE CARE IF ON A SLOW LINK, THE NEXT LINK IS 300Kb long**** at User:Emijrp/FirstPages a whole bunch of CamelCase was imported on 15 December 2010. User:Emijrp is still active: @Emijrp: do we still need it? Si Trew (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The one mention of XuaXaz at Lord of the Trees seems too brief to make this a useful redirect. It sounds like his role in a previous novel, A Feast Unknown, which might make a more logical target if the character is mentioned there. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. BDD, at Lord of The Trees it's to "XauXaz", not "XuaXaz" as you wrote above. I imagine that was just a typo, but I checked in case this was an {{R from misspelling}} and we had been led up a barking tree, hence having done so I note here that XauXaz is red (as are XauXax, Xauxax, Xuaxax and XuaXax, for what it's worth). It's a pity Google no longer has the regular expression search (that I can find, anyway)... Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - XauXaz also gets the same very brief mention at The Mad Goblin (another work in the same series), and by "the same" I mean the words are identical to Lord of the Trees. I'm with BDD in thinking this wouldn't be a useful redirect, and besides which article is the right one to redirect to? I wonder if this is some sort of mojibake for "x-y-z" as in measurement dimensions, but targeting to height is nonsense anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm okay with a Delete if we can't agree which book in the series is the best target for this term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings

• Plowback retained earnings → Retained earnings  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

"Plowback retained earnings" is a made-up phrase, invented with the sole purpose of creating this redundant content fork which for some reason was redirected rather than deleted. The redirect should be deleted, not only because it's implausible and useless, but also because it confuses the reader as our autocomplete algorithm will display it every time "Plowback" is typed into the search box thus suggesting we have two separate articles on the subject. We don't. For a more elaborate rationale, see the previous discussion which was closed two months ago and apparently resulted in "no consensus:" Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_10#Plowback_retained_earnings. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have Plowback which makes Plowback retained earnings redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[1] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AADD doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:AADD as a whole doesn't always apply to RfDs. However, in this particular case, WP:ITSUSEFUL very much does apply, and that's why I made a reference to it. If we were to accept that simply stating "the redirect is useful" was enough to prove its usefulness and thus prevent its deletion, we could just as well shut RfD down as one disruptive editor with enough free time on his/her hands would have the power to effectively close all RfD discussions as "keep" by making that statement over and over. Common sense would dictate that this simply isn't the way to go. I'm all for keeping useful redirects, but Plowback retained earnings isn't useful. If you believe otherwise, let's hear how it's useful. Making unsubstantiated assertions of the redirect's usefulness, especially in a situation where there have been numerous arguments presented in favor of its deletion, including the policy-based argument that it violates WP:POVNAME in that it fails to "anticipate what readers will type as a first guess," is entirely unhelpful, so as not to say disruptive. If you want the redirect to be kept, let's hear what makes it so useful that we need to retain it despite all the problems with it that were indicated by the nominator. And no, simply stating "because it's useful" won't do the trick. I must say that I find your interpretation of WP:RFD#KEEP #5 at least as bizarre as I find the weight you seem to give to it, seeing how it's neither a policy nor a guideline. Do you honestly believe that what WP:RFD#KEEP #5 means is "as soon as someone says "it's useful," the discussion should be closed and the redirect kept?" If that's the case then perhaps it's high time we reworded that inconsequential piece of advice it as in its current form it's apparently a source of confusion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to DAB at Ploughshare (disambiguation) (to which Plowshare (disambiguation) does not redirect), and add it there.

I was Keep with Steel1943 when I came to this relisting, but I think better to add at the DAB and R there.

• Reason for keeping: "Plowback" (also → Retained earnings) is, I think, is something specific to the U. S. (and not just U. S. English but the country); but in British English were it anything it would be ploughback): since that is red, it tends to show this is a U. S. specific term. And since the term exists and directs people to where they probably would like to go, it would be absurd to do anything else with it.
• Reason for DABbing: Ploughshare or Plowshare is just about possible, I suppose. (I note with some disdain that the lede says "international English" instead of "British English"... as if "international English" means anything: see WP:ENGVAR).

Isiah 2:4 has it in KJV "they will beat their swords into ploughshares" (of course variously translated), and perhaps the difference between a plowback vested in stocks and shares and a plowshare is something genuinely ambiguous that we should care about. Hence I suggest the DAB: it may not be always what someone is expecting to find, and from a DAB this meaning would be only one click away. Si Trew (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Plowback" isn't ambiguous, it has only one meaning—that of reinvested profits.[2][3][4] Retargeting it as you suggest is thus out of the question unless you produce a reliable source that corroborates your claims of the word's ambiguity. Your comment presents an argument in favor of keeping Plowback, which isn't necessary as Plowback isn't being considered for deletion, but fails to present a valid argument for keeping Plowback retained earnings, which is being considered for deletion, and as such it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per my previous rationale. To expand: when a corporation earns more in revenue in a fiscal period then it spends in the same period, it has net income. Net income is either distributed to the corporation's owners as a dividend or kept for the corporation's use as retained earnings (note: this is quite simplified). These are proper business terms. The act of taking net income for retained earnings has become known as "plow back" (verb; versus "pay out" for dividends), and the amount itself has become known as a "plowback" (noun; compare "payout" for dividends). Those aren't proper business terms but are common enough; they even come into colloquial names for business performance measures such as "plowback ratio" (properly earnings retention ratio, the inverse of dividend payout ratio). The phrase "plowback retained earnings" is doublespeak nonsense; it's striving to invent a definition where there is none, and as I said in a different discussion, we shouldn't keep redirects from business terms which are so close to being entirely made up. See also Department of Redundancy Department. Ivanvector (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I can see both sides of both sides here. @Iaritmioawp:: If you dislike my refering to the R at plowback, then I put the same point to you: can you produce an RS for the entire phrase "Plowback retained earnings" then? I can't, so in that case, it should go Delete. But since R's don't have to be RS but only helpful, the point is moot: and since Plowback goes there, and why I mentioned it, there seems little chance of confusion and it can go Keep. Howewer, I could be swayed by Ivanvector's RS suggesting that if it meant anything in its own right, it would be almost the opposite of what "plowback" means in the fiscal sense, in which case anyway it could be kept as an {{R from opposite}}, but that would be stretching it as a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that says those often go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was not that "plowback" and "retained earnings" are opposites. They are synonyms (the opposite of opposites!) with a possible subtle difference in usage, since plowback can also be a verb. But your confusion backs up my point: this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was your "doublespeak", above, that made me think that... I fess up, I didn't check your RS. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question, SimonTrew, no; neither I nor anyone else can produce a reliable source that uses the phrase "plowback retained earnings" because the phrase, as I've already noted twice, was invented by the creator of the Plowback retained earnings page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Plow back (@Ivanvector: "...has become known as "plow back") is red, but plough back is a very stubby economics article (just a WP:DICDEF and not a good one). Both should probably be R'd to whatever Plowback redirects to (currently Retained earnings), but I'm disinclined boldly to do so while this discussion is in progress. I'd also be inclined to add those to this nomination, but that would be out of order (I assume) after the relisting. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have redirected it; thanks for pointing it out. It is clearly the same thing as plowback, just a UK English spelling. Neither are mentioned at retained earnings but our finance articles are a bit of a horrible mess. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The first time I heard of this term was in an American English book and I had no idea what it meant (even though I could guess what the correctBritish spelling would be, the term itself was not common in the UK and I am not sure is even now: I think in Br. Eng. it is generally called something different. A bit odd, then, that the term was in Br. Eng. but not in US Eng: but the Rs there tend to indicate they've been created ad hoc. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm interjecting here to respond to your comment; apologies to the few comments below. If you mean that you read "plowback" and interpreted "plough back" you are mostly correct, those would be interchangeable US/UK English. I couldn't tell you if "plough back" is used in UK English to mean "retained earnings", but "plowback" is used this way in US English. The proper term is "retained earnings" in both internationalisms. Regarding this redirect, "plowback" is the same as "retained earnings", however "plowback retained earnings" is meaningless. To make yet another analogy, you put cold beer in a refrigerator, but there is no such thing as a cold beer refrigerator. (Alternate: all fridges are beer fridges). Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

SimonTrew, I'd like to remind you that you are participating in a discussion whose sole purpose is to establish whether Plowback retained earnings should be deleted or not. Please keep your comments directly relevant to the issue at hand. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion. That allows me to have a different opinion from yours. Thank you for reminding me. I did my research and others did too, so I am not sure who's the fool here. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

All opinions are welcome as long as they're directly relevant to the subject of the discussion and supported by valid arguments. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep to Retained earnings, and may Noah Webster turn in his grave. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CONSENSUS, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than by a headcount. SimonTrew's above comment is nothing but a vote and should thus be disregarded by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, Iaritmiawap is right, even though it pains me to say so. But here we don't tend to do all the how's your fathers of quoting policy but use WP:COMMONSENSE. The common sense seems to me that if we can't find a better place for it then stet, let it stand. I am a bit grumbly about kinda have the finger pointing at me but I will get over it. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that if there are numerous reasons to delete a redirect and no reason to keep it, which is clearly the case here, the redirect should be deleted. So far, no valid reason to keep Plowback retained earnings has been presented. If you know of a reason why the redirect should be kept, let's hear it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Of course this is a discussion and your points are valid and appreciated (and none should be disregarded per se), however you seem to have put a !vote beside as many as five of your comments, and they aren't all the same. I think that it would help the closer of this discussion if you could summarize. Ivanvector (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Main meal

• Main meal → Dinner  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I am not sure whether this should be converted to a dab page, but at present this does not seem like an appropriate redirect. While many think of dinner as the most main meal of the day, this redirect makes it seem as if it is the only main meal of the day is dinner. JZCL 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. At least a DAB. Off the top of my head, Alan Bennett made an autobiographical TV essay called Dinner at Noon (also an essay in his Writing Home – surprised these haven't articles or R's at least) which is rather about this (well, social pretentions on what people call the main meal of the day) and George Orwell mentions in The Road to Wigan Pier that it is natural that miners on shiftwork have their main meal of the day when they come home, whatever time of day that is. So I think a decent kinda cultural article could be made out of this. Tea culture#Tea as a meal is a possible entry on that DAB. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - per Si, this is probably a reasonable topic for an article, if someone cares to write one. It shouldn't redirect to where it does currently because it's misleading or just incorrect, and I think a dab is weak because the titles aren't actually ambiguous. Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind starting to flesh out an article (I don't say "oh we should have an article" unless I am prepared to make one), but necessarily it would be UK centric if there were no other contributors but me. A Wikipedia search for "breakfast, lunch and dinner" is somewhat fruitful, and the All-day breakfast can probably sneak in as a "See also". I suppose Hardtack, as a meal taken on the Main Sea (i.e. Atlantic Ocean, cf. Spanish Main), would be too punny; but we do have main course which say in the United States and parts of Canada it is called an "entrée" (again, something genuinely a false friend as in Br. Eng. it means a starter course). Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete to encourage article creation OR at least weak retarget to main course as the closest plausible synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget Meal#Common meals. Not oppose to delete for new article but would really need a lot more content than there for a spinout. Sorry Lenticel but Main course is just not the same level as "main meal" (only part of a meal). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget per Hisashiyarouin (the Japanese lettered guy above); otherwise disambiguate between breakfast,lunch,supper ; the main meal is different for different people and different cultures. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I disagree. "Main meal" has cultural significance and I think that needs to be said, Hisashi-san's suggestion was good but wrong. I think more important is the cultural significance of the main meal of the day.

W. H. Auden has a bit about it, for example. But my view necessarily would be a bit UK centric. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The main meal does not necessarily mean dinner, the main meal may be breakfast. Culturally significant meals are also several different ones, such as breakfast, the first meal. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Retarget per Hisashi. I think his opinion counts a lot because he can see it in a different way from a North American or British person, and that is the best thing to do per WP:WORLDWIDE, he can do it with fresh eyes and clean hands. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget to Meal#Common meals per 野狼院ひさし u/t/c. I'm fine with that too. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)