Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curb Chain (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 24 August 2015 (→‎Next Spanish general election: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2015.

The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. -- Schneelocke (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Schneelocke (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remark - this isn't the exact, actual title of the work, it's truncated due to software limitations. A redirect from the complete title would obviously be a keeper; I'm not sure about an arbitrarily truncated one. -- Schneelocke (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying this is the exact actual title, I'm saying that if someone pastes the exact actual title into the search bar, Wikipedia will automatically search for this truncated version. bd2412 T 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • And so would any other search engine. So, in effect, this hinders rather than helps a search. Si Trew (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412's point. --Rubbish computer 01:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term (indeed, the cut-off may be from software limitations, but readers encounter those limits - they're not Gods (at least, many aren't). As noted, no rationale for any action (or potential action) has been suggested, so it's hard to say anything other than "seems fine". WilyD 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above and in the older Rfd mentioned by the nominator. In order for this redirect to be useful, a user must know exactly how many characters can be typed into a URL or the search box. The search box does not truncate: if all 252 characters are not typed in this exact combination, or if any more or less characters are typed, the user misses the redirect and gets search results instead. This redirect cuts off mid-sentence; it's extremely unlikely that any reader would ever search for this exact phrase. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Earwig's closing rationale at the aforementioned RFD. This redirect is just like the other one, and I feel like it should suffer the same fate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When is Christmas?

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale has been presented for deletion. I'm a little surprised this isn't it's own article yet, though I don't think redlinking to encourage creation is warrented. It'll spin out in it's own time. WilyD 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How old is the Earth?

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've combined these two very similar items, which had near-identical vote breakdowns and discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: You've left my delete !vote in there twice.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Actually it appears to be my error, I'm fairly certain, after reviewing the history. I'm going to go ahead and fix it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot chicks

It is targeted as Physical attractiveness#Female physical attractiveness. Wikipedia is not a pornographic website nor is it a dating site. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're looking for. Nominator doesn't suggest any action, nor does their statement suggest anything should be done. WilyD 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RfD#D5, as this appears a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A double dose of informal slang. A young bird, especially one newly hatched, having a high degree of heat or a high temperature? Nope. Hot men and Hot women are acceptable perhaps, this isn't.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finite module

"Finite module" could mean a module that is finite as a set. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keeping the redirect and adding a "see also" sounds like a good solution, assuming the finitely generated module meaning is dominant. mathrick (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q word

I don't get this at all. I suggest retarget to quiet, as there is a notable superstition amongst health care workers against uttering the word "quiet" in a hospital. Which I also don't get, but there you have it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the last part of "thank" (k) and you? as in "ten Q"? – Paine  11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I didn't see any results for it. To search, I googled "the q word" (no quotes) and got a page that was only results for the usage I suggested, discounting a couple of links to Scrabble cheating sites which come up in the same spot in search results for any "the [letter] word" search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no prominent usage of the term, and it isn't mentioned in any of the suggested targets. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T word

I know several possible uses of "T word", none are for this target. Laverne Cox created a documentary called "The T-Word" which we haven't written an article about but perhaps could; in the meantime The T-word goes to twat, and so should this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have Q-word or T-word. As analogues, we have F word as a DAB to which F-word redirects; C word and C-word both → Cunt; S-word → Shit but S word is red. For all of them, WP:NOTDIC is somewhat relevant. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the most notable use I can find is "The T Word" a documentary on MTV. It is mentioned at Laverne Cox#Career - "On October 17, 2014 Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word, an hour-long documentary executive-produced and narrated by Cox, premiered on MTV and Logo simultaneously." That (plus a source) is all we have for it though, so whether it merits a retarget or not I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next Greek legislative election

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tsipras already dropped the writ (there are several BBC articles on the election, for example). I've found leaving the redirect in place since, for example, my browser is set to find "Next Greek legislative election" more easily (I've been using that link to follow polling for several years, since it always points to whatever the "next" election is, be it this year or next or whatever). So please, leave it in place until the election happens and then "de-direct" it in September.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above, the election has already been called [1]. How is it CRYSTALly? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment to User:Thryduulf.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many "Next ... election" redirects, and while consensus about them isn't strong it has generally fallen to keep when they are predictable. When we have a specific article or section on a future election they should point there, when we don't they should point to the article that notes when the next election will be to the degree of precision currently known (e.g. "the next election will take place on or before day month year"). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS #2 (especially) and #4, articles should not be created unless it is enduringly notable. These "Next ... election" redirects are simply being used as a repository of reports until they are "considered" official, as is clear from the rest of these comments. If the article is going to be moved anyway, then it would fail WP:ARTICLETITLE since articles should have the proper title in the first place.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For elections, you can't have the "[Country] general election, [year]" format used in article titles until the election is assured to be held at a certain date, because otherwise it would fail to meet WP:CRYSTALBALL #1. But also as per CRYSTAL #1, future elections are notable and certain enough to take place at some point to take them into consideration, specially because it is not difficult to find enough relevant information to keep the articles going (Electoral system, opinion polls to be constantly updated, etc). Impru20 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No sense for this. Tsipras has resigned, and the legal process that will lead to a snap election in either 20 or 27 September has already started. "Next Greek legislative election" should be keep so that people are redirected to the September election, and once it is held, the article can be re-used for the next election. Impru20 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: updating these redirects for national elections would not cause much extra work. Rubbish computer 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 since the election it refers to is the current election; the next election is whichever one follows the one next month. Which also helpfully illustrates why we should not create these redirects generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivan. As soon as the election is over, the redirect will be outdated and we'd have to revisit this. Since we're already here, let's just delete it like we've done three times in the past. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next Spanish general election

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With respect to the Spanish election, though the writ hasn't been dropped I think there are only a handful of extreme scenarios where the election could be any year other than this year (e.g. the potential election period does not spill into 2016). Much as a US Presidential election could, in theory, be moved up under certain narrow circumstances (or the next Olympics cancelled), WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem applicable w.r.t. the 2015 election. I'd agree if we were talking about the elections after these (which could fall anywhere in the next few years), but the odds of the elections not happening this year seem vanishingly small...so the two labels and the redirect seem appropriate.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not WP:CRYSTAL, since legally, it is not possible for the election to not be held in 2015 (20 December would be the last possible date to hold it), unless very exceptional unforeseeable circunstamces happen (war, national emergency, whatever). But assuming the election would be moved up into 2016 of further under those circumstances would be WP:CRYSTAL, since those are not foreseeable in the near future. So, unless those do actually happen the election should be treated just as the US presidential elections or the Olympics are, to be held at the date they are legally expected to. Specially given than Rajoy himself has confirmed that the election will be held "by the end of the year", after the 2016 Budget is passed into law in Congress. "Next Spanish general election" should be kept as a redirect to the 2015 election, and once the election is held it would be used for the election after this year's one. Impru20 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an election is determined to be in a specific year, it should be titled "Spanish general election, [insert year here]". For example, "Next Spanish general election" was moved to "Spanish general election, 2012" and then "Spanish general election, 2012" was moved to ""Spanish general election, 2011".Curb Chain (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that, in many countries, such as Spain, elections are not determined to be in a specific year. What is determined is the latest possible date the election can be held in the event of no snap election being held earlier. Surely, the one who moved the "Next Spanish general election" article to "Spanish general election, 2012" back when he/she did it shouldn't have done so as per WP:CRYSTAL, since legally the election could have been held in 2011 (as it finally did). In this case, however, we are already in 2015, it is impossible for the election to be held later than 20 December 2015 and Rajoy himself has stated that the election will be held by the end of the year. But the election still has not been held, so it is still the next election, and Wikipedia readers can still search for "Next Spanish general election" in looking for the 2015 election.
Once the election is held, the "Next Spanish general election" article is simply re-used for the next election. Just as it has been done in Wikipedia for many other countries. I see no reason why it should be removed. Impru20 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the Spanish general election, 2015, since we know in certainty that it will occur this year. But referring to "Spanish general election, 2015" is equally ambiguous as a reader from google could be "next" as in any subsequent "Spanish general election". Another note, I don't think these redirects are being used appropriately.Curb Chain (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: it would not cause much extra work to update these redirects for national elections. Rubbish computer 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_24&oldid=677666920"