Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

October 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2014.

Graceful failure

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 added more explanation of these terms to Fault tolerance#Terminology since the article seemed to need it anyway, and pointed both redirects there. I added merge tags where I thought the merge suggestions below had merit. Further improvements to all these articles are very welcome. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target article discusses graceful degradation, but not failure. Since it's not mentioned there, I recommend deletion. BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Fail gracefully) Grammatical variant. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget', but not sure where DABify. We also have fail-safe and graceful exit. While none is perfect, I think the concept is common enough that we could retargetDABify this.
Wiktionary doesn't have it. GSearch gives me enough RS examples: here at Safari Books Online and here at O'Reilly books, also here in an article at The Guardian. I don't want to synthesise information, but we could perhaps add the term to the target graceful exit, with those sources? e.g. the lede "Graceful exit or Graceful failure[1][2][3]..."? Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding "fail gracefully" to nom.
    WP:RFD#KEEP says differing grammatical forms do not form a reason to delete, and taken pedantically that could mean neither should be deleted because the other exists, but it seems better to treat them the same. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Other examples of articles that use variants of the term (without stretching too far) are
Babbitt (metal), Bailout, Browser sniffing, Gizzard (Scala framework), IBM System z10, Kerckhoffs's principle (piped to graceful exit), Stress testing (software) all use some form of the term. "Gracefully fail
" does not exist.
We are not
Babbitt (metal) and Bailout, the uses are all for software. (I'm a bit surprised we don't have "Bailout (software)" to mean error handling code, but perhaps that is just my personal jargon.) Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Restore original article. Before someone changed this to a redirect (which I disagree describes this term appropriately), I originally wrote this as an article. ~~helix84 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the article should be restored. It's an unsourced stub with some statements factually incorrect. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 11 November 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.

Mouf

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. There's essentially no consensus here, but no one wants these kept as they are, and there's disagreement about where they should point. Any user who thinks these should exist may recreate them pointing to his or her desired target, but prepare to defend your choice at a future RfD. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather ridiculous redirect. Yes, an example of this dialect, but there's really very little connection between these titles and the target Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget Norf london to North London - it probably shouldn't have been created, but now it does that is the best place for it to point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...but now it does that is the best place for it to point Um, can you elaborate on that? Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with reasoning, but not concusion. All my family are from Norf London. I am not sure I would agree with it not being created, but in Cockney or as it is called these days Estuary English (totally different things) the "th" would be sounded "f". It may be a bit of a Private Eyeism though? (There was a strip in that called "It's grim up North London"), my subcrition lapsed but by Knife and Packer I think, which was deliberately posh types – presumably gay – who earned far too much money and were constantly doing up their place. I am not sure if that is relevant. Alan Bennett had the same theme thirty years ago about Knocking through i.e. conjoining two properties to make one large one, in Camden (Norf London). So I think this is sort of relevant, although more precision than North London would be better. London south of the Thames was technically Surrey until well into the twentieth century; so what is "North London"? Watford Gap]? Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Mouf. I don't see value in retargetting to mouth (but I am open to persuasion otherwise). Word of Mouf is the only other vaguely realistic target, but I think that is too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Londoners do know how to spell (except for
    greengrocers' apostrophes) but we are not a pronunciation guide any more than we are a translation service (which are perhaps the same thing!) rouf I give as a parallel, which should go to four, as it is bookmakers' slang for 4/1 against. I keep meaning to do the article for tic-tac. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Part of the whole reason slang is created and circulated is people want to be under a guise of exclusiveness. In other words, be a douchebag. Wikipedia prides itself on being in the know, so when typing in slang someone thinks no one will know, imagine being displayed the scholarly study on the subculture the word plays in. This user created the redirects because I assumed no one would debate this, but since it is, it should be noted that th-fronting is used in Ebonic culture as well. Thanks Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
  1. We use enough slang or
    Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion
    and that is for brevity, not exclusivity. It's fine as long as everyone knows the same jargon.
  2. This is not slang or jargon, but an approximation of a particular way to pronounce something, in particular
    Liverpudlian or Geordie
    , or indeed anywhere else.
  3. For if not, we add "fink positive" and "fird league" and so on ad infinitum. English is especially divergent in its spoken and written forms compared to most languages. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, On the other hand I suppose there is precedent: we do have
    WP:RS, I don't have the musical score
    .
But I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a comedy. A tragedy sometimes, certainly. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget both to Mockney. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was just thinking, the P. G. Wodehouse "Jeeves" character Gussie Fink-Nottle presumably is some kind of suggestion of "think not at all" (he being good natured but a bit dim), but neither the author not Gussie is remotely "common". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 23 September 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) 16:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to corecctly spelled forms. It should, arguably be "marf" in the contexts some other commentators have mentioned. But certainly "Blimey what a mouf, what a norf-and-souf" is probably the archetypal usage of this spelling/pronunciation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 25 October 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.

Mangga

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 turn into disambiguation page. I think I added everything that was mentioned here, plus anything the Wikipedia search engine found for "mangga". I also cleaned up Manga (disambiguation) and cross-linked. Feel free to edit further and discuss on the article talk pages. -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Indonesian for "mango", weak retarget to

ChampionMan1234 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm with you either way.
siamese twins so I don't mind discussing them here. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the response. Where do you suggest the DAB be, mangga? Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I originally though yes, but then I found Mangga Buang language listing "Mangga" exactly as a name. Maybe make the language the primary topic and start Mangga (disambiguation)? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What a tangled web we unweave. We have also
Mangga language as the shorter title, as there don't seem to be any other Mangga language, but I note the official ISO name is "Mangga Buang Language" (code MMO). an evangelical bible study site here kinda implies that "Buang" is a geographical, rather than linguistic, adjective ("British English" springs to mind as a parallel) – but I'm not entirely convinced of that. We don't have plain Buang
, for example.
To complicate things, we also have
whodunnit
.
Most of these language articles are stubs with very little real useful info.
Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There also exists Manga (disambiguation) that didn't mention Manga language but I've just boldly merged Manga language there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, how dare you
be bold? I guess you get away with it because you are an admin. It is just one piece of hay we have found in an enormous stack of needles, though. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Struck I meant it jokingly but it might seem otherwise. SiTrew.[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) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and Comment - mangga is also the spelling for "mango" in the
    WP:R#DELETE that "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". - tucoxn\talk 23:27, 8 November 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.

Sanjubrokkasen

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) 21:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed a whole bunch of redirects that were redirected to

probably a pun on the currently-redirected article, but I guess until the Thirty-six Honourable Battles gets its own article I guess the current redirect status is best for a pretty likely misspelling of a foreign name. On the other hand "Immortals of poetry japanese" is ambiguous, since we also have an article on the "Six Immortals of Poetry". I'm pretty sure the word "japanese" at the end makes this a pretty useless redirect either way, though. I'm not sure what to make of these, but at the moment I would say delete "Sanjubrokkasen" and "Immortals of poetry japanese", but keep "Sanjurokassen" for the time being. What does everyone else think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I probably hould have done this more justice. The "-kk-" is not
romaji is it (one K is enough), although I note Nikkei and Nikkai have it. I agree the one ending "japanese" without initial cap seems pointless (English caps language names; I know many other languages that don't, I would think it natural an English speaker to type in the cap, unless they are REALLY lazy). The others I have no opinion on –I don't know who the thirty-six immortals are, which is revealing my ignorance even more than usual. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Sanjurokassen because missing a "k" is a very plausible misspelling. The paintings appear to be called "Meiyo sanjurokassen" not just "sanjurokassen" so that's a partial title match and doesn't need attention, but in any case a hatnote to Utagawa Kuniyoshi would be sufficient. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT, though. Do you think we should just leave it until someone(theoretically?) creates the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps until it gets discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 26 September 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) 14:10, 21 October 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.

Apep (disambiguation)

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. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no two pages named Apep. Disambig not necessary. Redirects to differently named disambig. uKER (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Apophis (a DAB page), and add phrase "or Apep" to the lede there.
I'm not sure what's gone on here Apophis (disambiguation) is an R to DAB at
Apepi (pharaoh). (I don't accept that "Apep" and "Apepi" are different names.) My suggested retarget ties it all together more symetrically. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Since this has devolved into a discussion about the fate of maybe 5 pages, my suggestion is: G6 delete Apophis (disambiguation), move Apophis there, and retarget Apepi and Apep to the disambig page. Then, maybe Apophis should be recreated as a redirect to the disambig, and Apep (disambiguation) could be deleted (which I prefer) or retargeted to Apophis (disambiguation). --uKER (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to leave the DAB page at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be moved to "Apophis". Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've added the (R to) DAB page Apep (disambiguation) to the hatnotes at Apep and 'Apepi: it seems clearer to readers to go to the DAB via Apep rather than Apophis, and also helps if we decided to split the Apophis DAB page in two (Apep/Apophis) – but I don't suggest doing so.
I'm not trying to pre-empt discussion here; I hope these are uncontroversial (esecially because the Apep I go via the R at Apep (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 3 November 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.

London Buses routes 612 and 685

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) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Launchballer 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the L and G are quite far on a keyboard so I don't see why a person would misspell the word in this manor.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when you submitted this you got an ec and it went into the wrong section (immediately below)... I've copied it there, hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that was where it was meant to go.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 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.

LGlossary of baseball (O)

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
WP:CSD#G7 (author request; see comments at the end of the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Unlikely typo, created during a double page move.

Fram (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Really don't care - policy says this should be kept since it is four years old. However it really doesn't matter. If you understood what was involved you would not nominate this for deletion, since nothing is gained by deleting it. Of course since you claim to be a programmer one would expect that you do actually understand that. If you didn't you could have read the explanations I have provided previously. Of course there is the possibility that you are not RfDing this because it is harmful, but for other reasons. If so, you should find a new hobby. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
Where have I ever claimed to be a programmer?
Fram (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, and which policy says that a four year old redirect should be kept? It shouldn't be speedy deleted, that's why I nominated it for discussion instead. But no policy I'm aware of states that old redirects should be kept.
Fram (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Rich Farmbrough: If there's something we should know about a redirect that would stop someone from nominating it, you put a note on its talk page, because that's what talk pages are for. A good example, Wikipedia talk:8 which tells us exactly why that redirect exists, and notice how it has never been nominated for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 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.

Global Jihad

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 disambiguate. Most editors advocated either disambiguating or redirecting. There wasn't a universal agreement as to where it should go, so I've created a disambiguation page. I also marked that page as {{
dabconcept}}, as it appears that the phrase itself is a candidate for an article. Non admin close, feel free to revert if I've screwed it up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget to

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (no longer associated with al-Qaeda) and other groups. Disambiguation to the various uses of the term is preferred. ~Technophant (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. @Technophant. Thanks for pinging me. OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! ~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be technical, Technophant, what you're proposing is to disambiguate the term, not retarget it. Given
    WP:CONCEPTDAB article is possible, though. I have my own suggestion, though. See below. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Jihadism, which already includes this term bolded in the lede. These appear to be mostly, if not entirely, overlapping concepts. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to Jihadism as proposed by BDD. This seems like the simplest solution. Also RD Global jihad there ( Done).~Technophant (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at Jihadism it says that "the term is clumsy and controversial." I agree. That's why I started this RfD. It's hard to figure out how to handle this term. Another thing, only one article links to "Global Jihad", South Thailand insurgency, and the way it does it is by using [[Global Jihad|foreign Islamic]].~Technophant (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that. I had thought to suggest just to R it to jihad, since I thought jihad is by implication global (in the same sense that, e.g., The gospel#Christian mission is, though that section uses the word "worldwide", and even then in [square brackets] as an insertion.)
  • A few more suggestions for DAB:
Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Adding
    WP:NCCAPS specifically allows article titles to differ only by caps, but says that such articles should be hatnoted: which is not possible (well, not useful) for R's. Their targets should be hatnoted, but we can't do that until we get consensus on which targets they are. Creating Global jihad was premature. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I believe that there may be an organisation called "Global Jihad". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
    • @Rich Farmbrough: There is certainly a website globaljihad.net, but the website is down at the moment and from what I can see on the Google Cache it isn't clear whether it is an organisation, some organisation's campaign or something else. I don't have time to research further atm, but it is research that needs doing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf@ - the website appears to be mainly an aggregator of news stories about global jihad, but (https://web.archive.org/web/20100612080850/http://global jihad.net/view_page.asp?id=1420 per this archived page - with the space in the url removed ) it does not seem to be a jihadist site itself.
      • I have made a preliminary search for Global Jihad, with only one or two at best ambiguous hits (a reference to "global jihad cells", for example, without caps). Given that terrorist groups are often ephemeral to the point of only being documented as a single press release (and this applies to almost all radical groupings, certainly in recent history, which tend to splinter, reform and change their names with alarming frequency) I would be inclined not to worry about my previous point, until and unless such an organisation turns up, when things can be easily changed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Comment I'm not sure if it is a more appropriate target, but
    Offensive jihad also exists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough
    , 12:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Interesting page, though I think either offensive or defensive jihad could be global in scope. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Correct me but I do not see a reason for keeping this redirect. Anyone searching for the term from outside of Wikipedia will be connect to relevant articles that contain the term. Why do we need a redirect on this term? If need be editors can more transparently use piping.
    ✍♪ 13:40, 2 December 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.

Land Sea Lion

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on a joke from Futurama, the episode The Deep South. Obviously this shouldn't target lion, but I'm not sure it should target the Futurama episode either, and it maybe should just be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_21&oldid=1142587323"