Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 11

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taylor Trescott (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 12 March 2017 (→‎List of every... redirects: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2017.

Glatiramer acetate-induced lymphocytic infiltrate of Jessner

The very long redirect name is a combination of a drug name and an unverified side-effect, no verification sources are given per WP:MEDRS. The particular pharmaceutical-causes-this concept does not have a mention in any other WP article that I can find, including the presumably specific glatiramer acetate article, so this redirect seems to wildly non-NPOV in itself. Surely the powerset of all pharmaceuticals crossed with all side effects is not going to turn into exponential WP redirecting. Richard J Kinch (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a decent ref that supports the connection and added it here [1]. Agree with the concerns about exponential growth of redirects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of every... redirects

The use of the word "every" is misleading in these redirects since Wikipedia is a work in progress and since the redirects' titles leave the reader with the expectation that they will indeed find every individual on the target lists. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I can't quite bring myself to say these should be kept, but I think a reader with any amount of competence (I firmly believe it's required for readers as well) will know that we don't and can't have such complete lists. But that is the goal, pipe dream though it is. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful. You can have a list of every (topic) redirect to list of (topic). Or add "please give me a list of" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've actually updated the NHL lists by name a few summers. It does contain every NHL player up to when it was last updated. Which basically means it doesn't include rookies. I wouldn't call that misleading, but perhaps it makes the redirects slightly inaccurate once a season begins. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It's not misleading if it fits the aspirational goal of the list. If the targets are not up to date, either fix it if you can or tag it to notify other readers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Policastro

Delete to encourage article creation as it is a notable separate geographic entity from the town. Brycehughes (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An article is certainly welcome on the Gulf, but if someone does enter "Gulf of Policastro" then this redirect brings them to a highly relevant best available target. It's useful. Alsee (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its first official website link and picture on article indicates Gulf of Policastro. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially since it's currently being used as a circular redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DENK (political party)

DENK (political party) shoule be re-targeted to DENK (Dutch political party) as it is about the same subject. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DDENSIDH

Not a plausible search term for the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" (which is the Interstate Highway System.) Rschen7754 17:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only coherent results from a google search relate to the twitter handle for a Drake Dendish, who is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this is not a plausible search term; aside from the requestor of the redirect, no one uses it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also don't think that this is useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fireteam Rogue

Target article includes no information on the topic other than a listing in a table, plus the redirect is not used anywhere in the article namespace on Wikipedia. Lordtobi (✉) 11:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade (game)

Target article is not a game. Lordtobi (✉) 11:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grade rationing

I've added grade-rationing into this discussion.— Gorthian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if "grade rationing" is the same thing as "class rank", and if it is, it isn't in the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grade rationing is a type of grading on a curve that is meant to emphasize class rank. Speaking broadly, it stops grade inflation, increases intra-class competition (at the expense of collaboration and teamwork), makes it easier to identify people who do well in school (which may not be the students who know the material best or the students who are the smartest), and annoys ambitious parents (who would rather have a meaningless "perfect score" than have their own child get a lower grade). You are more likely to find it in a law school than in a high school. AFAICT, this is usually imposed by a school on teachers, rather than being something that individual teachers choose to do, and it usually comes in fairly mild forms, like Thou Shalt Not Give Straight A's To Every Single Student. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Academic grading in the United States#Rank-based grading, where it is mentioned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather not retarget it to Academic grading in the United States#Rank-based grading, which is too narrow a match. I'd be willing to either add a section to class rank or to grading on a curve, and retarget the redirect to that section, or convert the redirect into a stub -- in both cases based on the details WhatamIdoing added above. --Waldir talk 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_11&oldid=770002403"