Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 10

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2012

6939

[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 Speedy delete per creator's comment below. Hut 8.5 15:32, 19 August 2012 (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.

PQDOS

[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. I am inclined to give a benefit of doubt to the creator of this redirect. Ruslik_Zero 17:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't establish that this is a commonly used alternate name. Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi. I'm the one who created the redirect in order to "catch" the term and redirect the user to the corresponding article. PQDOS is the name chosen by Powerquest for what was a specific OEM version of DR-DOS, so only users of those Powerquest products which incorporated it will have stumbled upon it. Therefore, the name is not in wide-spread use, and there certainly will never be a separate article for it. That's why I just redirected it to the DR-DOS article. After all, that's one of the very purposes of redirects.
I also added it for reasons of consistency, as we also have redirects from EZDOS and NWDOS to the DR-DOS article. This also ensures that the operating system shows up under all its names in the corresponding categories. EZDOS was an OEM version of DR DOS as well, and NWDOS was Novell's abbreviation for Novell DOS, which was a version of DR DOS as well. These alternative names were sometimes also used in file and path names, f.e. C:\NWDOS\, C:\DRDOS\, C:\EZDOS\ etc. for the installation directory. Unfortunately, there have been many name changes in the history of this operating system, and some OEMs even invented their own names...
BTW, we do similar things with MS-DOS as well: IBM PC DOS is an OEM version of MS-DOS (although much better known ;-). Before Microsoft enforced the MS-DOS name for all OEM versions but IBM's, there were also OEM versions named SB-DOS, Z-DOS, NCR-DOS, etc. Unless there are separate articles for these OEM versions, we just redirect them to MS-DOS as well, so why shouldn't we do it the same way with DR-DOS?
Obviously, my suggestion is to keep the redirect and let it continue to just redirect to the DR-DOS article. Not many users will use it, but those who will will certainly be grateful to be pointed in the right direction. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Delete. I'm having trouble finding out anything more than files going by the names of "pqdos.exe" and "pqdos.rar" exist (with varying capitalisation), that the former has existed since at least 2008, that approximately three sites claim one or other can be downloaded from them; and that at least one site thinks that it "100% might be a virus". Google translation of some hits in Chinese from Baidu.com talk about PowerQuest Partition Magic running under DOS, but as that PQ was acquired by Symantec and DR-DOS is a Novell product I am far from confident they are the same thing. Further, PowerQuest were not in the business of operating systems, making me even less sure. If there is a connection between the reidrect and the target its existence is apparently unverifable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] about PowerQuest Partition Magic running under DOS, but as that PQ was acquired by Symantec and DR-DOS is a Novell product I am far from confident they are the same thing." It can be confusing at times, but yes, we are talking about the same thing, only different times and versions. PowerQuest used Caldera's DR-DOS in several of their products, including in Partition Magic. PQDOS was a later incarnation. Right now, I'm not sure, if they were still making Partition Magic at this time.
"Further, PowerQuest were not in the business of operating systems, making me even less sure." They were in the business of system management tools for end-users and professionals, including low-level tools. Some of these tools required specific operating environments to work in. As I wrote above, PQDOS was an OEM version of DR-DOS, not a stand-alone retail product. OEM software is typically used as a component / building block / enabler (as visible or invisible part) in other products. Sometimes they are just stripped down or renamed variants of the components also available as retail product elsewhere, sometimes they are specifically modified or even developed to perform certain tasks or work in certain environments only. For example, you sometimes get OEM versions of operating systems bundled as part of a hardware deal (a PC or add-on component like a hard disk), but you cannot buy these operating systems (at least not these specific versions and with their specific license) in a retail shop. I hope this explanation was useful. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation, but I stand by my delete recommendation. This is because, as Tikiwont notes below, what you have said is unverifiable in any source I have been able to find. If it is verifiable in offline reliable sources, then add the referenced information to the target article and I'll change my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems reasonable enough per creator's comments -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whilst the creator's comments are plausible, research on both terms brings me now back just to this very discussion. So, far from any separate article, already the sentence "PQDOS is the name chosen by Powerquest for what was a specific OEM version of DR-DOS" into the target would be unverifiable and keeping the redirect we'd establish what seems to be original research. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2012 (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.

Masti (film)

[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 Redirect to Masti. Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more films Masti (2007 film) and red-link Masti (1995 film) exists. Also the same film has it's sequel probably called Masti 2 or Grand Masti coming. The 2004 film is definitely not primary topic to be target for Masti (film). It should hence be deleted. Also there are other Mastis too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done i suppose. Only one linked here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Masti per Ten Pound Hammer. It does not seem worthwhile to create a separate DAB page just to list the films in this series. The Masti page is short enough that the interested reader will easily be guided to the correct item. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2012 (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.

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

[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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems inappropriate to redirect a .js page to a Template, and in any case it's a double redirect. It takes up space on Special:DoubleRedirects. Creator is retired. However, might the large number of transclusions be a reason not to delete (see: links to redirect)? In which case, retarget to Template:RfA toolbox and at least deal with the double redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2012 (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.

Cleveland steamer

[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 until there is some clearer consensus on the merged content. Tikiwont (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. Content apparently used to exist but it was removed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added the RfD tag to the protected redirected page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning keep, Consensus was clear that Cleveland steamer should be merged into Coprophilia, and this was done. As you say it was removed later, but I haven't been able to determine when though. It appears that at some point reference was removed to it in the body of the article, without talk page discussion - (silent) removal of things deemed "offensive" is a sadly not-infrequent occurrence by people wishing to "clean up" or censor Wikipedia (whether done explicitly or not). Then at various later times "in popular culture" and all other mentions of it were removed because the term was not explained in the article - not unreasonable in and of itself. When the merge discussion was taking place, some users were of the opinion that it was a topic notable enough for its own article. All this leads me to think that it is likely that the content will be reinstated in the article at some point, and at that point the redirect will be clearly correct. I'll note this discussion on the target talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Repeatedly failed to find consensus to delete at AfD. If the merge is untenable, reverse the redirect and go to back to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore content either in the target or as a standalone article. Reading the last AfD it's clear that the merge outcome was an attempt to keep the most people happy by merging two stubbish articles together. Actual, valid arguments at AfDs have consistently shown consensus (although not unanimity) that Wikipedia needs to have some content on this topic, although there is less agreement on how much that should be. The removal of content was not done according to consensus (it was either good-faith bold editing or bad-faith vandalism (likely motivated by censorship) but I've yet to discover which. In any case Cleveland steamer should be a blue link that leads the user to encyclopaedic content directly or via a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The act in question really isn't encyclopedic. I wouldn't remove it from the relevant article, but its absence doesn't bother me in the least. The redirect is valid as long as the standalone article remains deleted. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment: I agree in part with Thryduulf. We should not let the paring down of an article and subsequent nomination for deletion of the history-rich redirect form an end-run around consensus. However the article seems to have slowly had the Cleveland steamer content removed over time (it's time consuming to pull out all the relevant diffs because the frequent page blankings interfere with diff searching tools); this suggests to me that consensus may have changed in the last four years. Deletion is unacceptable as long as the target exists, because if at any time the content in Coprophilia's history is restored, the pre-merge history in Cleveland steamer will again be necessary for attribution. But keeping this redirect while the target makes no mention of the term is also unacceptable to me as a violation of our principle of least astonishment (in fact, Skrofler expresses confusion for this very reason at Talk:Coprophilia#Cleveland Steamer). If the consensus really has changed, this ought to be moved to a history subpage. I don't believe there has been enough recent discussion to make that judgment though. BigNate37(T) 19:31, 15 August 2012 (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.

Happen

[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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiktionary redirect states that it is not to be used for any old word, just words that are likely to be repeatedly recreated as iunencyclopedic articles. Logs for this page show that it has never been deleted before, and thus had never been created before, this incarnation, so I fail to see what purpose it serves. If it hasn't been created once as an unencyclopedic article before, then what would lead one to believe that it will be repeatedly recreated as an unencyclopedic article in the future without the presence of the page as it stands? CtP (t • c) 00:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't see any reason why this would be helpful, nor any greater likelihood of a dictionaric content being created here than at almost any other randomly selected word. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. It seems outright silly to have a redlink for such a common term. Perhaps retarget to happening, happenings (disambiguation), or somewhere else. But if no suitable target can be found it should just be kept as is. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a common word, certainly, but per WP:OVERLINK we shouldn't link arbitrary words. "Happen" is not the title for an encyclopaedia article (see WP:NOUN)- it's not an encyclopaedic concept. The question then is whether it is a likely search term for "happening" or "happenings" and I don't think it is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete Per Thryduulf. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redlinks at unencyclopedic titles are not inherently harmful, but the attitude that everything should be a blue link is harmful and impractical, and should not be allowed to become precedent. CtP points out in the nomination that {{wi}} is not to be used for any old word, and I agree: in the same spirit as reasons for deletion #1, a user searching for the word 'happen' is likely looking for an encyclopedic topic involving that word whose exact name they do not remember, and a dictionary definition for a common English word on the English Wikipedia is only going to make it less convenient to search for. Let the MediaWiki search come up when this term searched for, because I agree with Thryduulf that there isn't really a single appropriate target for redirection—redirection to happening, for example, while suggested by our article title format policy, would violate the principle of least astonishment. Disambiguating every article that has the word 'happen' or 'happens' would be a very poor alternative, because the scope of such a disambiguation is difficult to define—creating a broad-concept article is therefore the most sensible form of disambiguation, if we are really set against deletion. The best alternative is allowing the MediaWiki search to occur when the term is entered in the search bar or arrived at from external links, and keeping the link red to discourage editors from wikilinking the term in article space. BigNate37(T) 19:27, 13 August 2012 (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/2012_August_10&oldid=1138578053"