Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

June 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2015.

👯

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 9#👯

Disbeliever

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Disbeliever

Pain in the arse

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 soft redirect, like its American counterpart. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt spelling of Pain in the ass at MfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_30#Pain_in_the ass where suggest this is included. Widefox; talk 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:Pain in the arse, pending someone writing an article about either variation of this idiom. Per previous discussion linked by nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWaitChanged
    R from alternate spelling}}. British English distinguishes between your behind, and a donkey. When Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night, "Methinks I was beloved of an ass", that is a donkey, not a bottom. Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Pain in the ass; assuming that becomes an article or disambiguation page -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the result at Pain in the ass before proceeding with this one. Honestly, it should have been included in that other rationale for consistency. If ass is soft redirected, so should this one. If an article is created there, this should be retargeted there, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Tarvix - We should wait till whatever outcome the other one gets otherwise it's gonna end up getting confusing. –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 1 July 2015 (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.

Minister of Social Affairs

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 Withdrawn.
WP:BOLDly, I am just going to retarget as Tavix said. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No ministers or ministries of Social Affairs are listed thereon. Neither the word "social" nor "affair"(s) appears at the target.

WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (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.

Non-Muslim

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 no consensus, default to keep all. Deryck C. 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous POV. A kafir (lit. disbeliever) is not necesarily a non-Muslim or even a Muslim depending on context, and not every single faith which is "unislamic" should be tied to Islam here so the opposite argument is not suitable for inclusion. 92slim (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an apathist. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think I put this elsewhere and better also, but Unbeliever → Infidel. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing else there would be referred to as "non-Muslim", even though many things there aren't. I'm sure the wildcat, for example, doesn't give theology much thought. (List of things which are not Muslim, anyone?) --BDD (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (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.

Social affairs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Social affairs

Pain in the ass

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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. We're not really any closer to consensus than when this was relisted, so of the remaining two options, I'm choosing the alternative to deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't redirect

WP:SLANG, and deletion and removal of the cross wiki hatnote (which isn't valid) is the correct way per SLANG, NOTHOWTO etc? Widefox; talk 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as the creator of this redirect, I can assure that there never was a serious reason for its existence. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, was thinking the same, wiktionary redirect or salting (as SLANG). Ass pain, Arse pain, Bottom pain are all available for those needing a PITA. Widefox; talk 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also buttocks pain. Do we have enough pictures in our buttocks article? Just in case our readers don't know what they look like Wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they need a wiktionary PITA, this is currently just a WP PITA. Widefox; talk 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to annoyance, the current target, and a wiktionary link, and anything else that comes up -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support disambiguation. We could also include a link to Frustration in the dab, though, from the pictures on that article, it seems pain in the head should redirect there. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think
    WP:NOTDICT says the opposite of what you're suggesting. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary (there should be a shortcut to this...). The bottom part of that describes this situation perfectly. If we delete it, we are encouraging someone to recreate it sometime down the road, and we don't want that. A soft redirect helps prevent that from happening while offering some information on the subject. Of course, we could delete and salt it, but I just don't think that's helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose disambiguation - see
    WP:TWODABS (a wikt link isn't an article). Widefox; talk 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(clarify: "Right" is offtopic) As for including the slang/idiom in the lead, we shouldn't per
WP:MEDRS. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Wbm1058 probably has a point here. The difference, I think, is that all of the dabs here give a brief definition followed by specific examples of title usage (i.e.
Hot Tip (film)). We don't have the same sorts of title matches for "pain in the ass", we would instead be listing things which might be considered pains in the ass. Still opposed to disambiguation, but is soft redirect with possibilities a thing? Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Idiom or slang aside - whatever the utility of having an article (the idiom or notable slang - wikt says it is both) in WP or a mention in
WP:DABMENTION respectively). Until then, it is not a valid entry in the dab (PITA
), and is a Wikt issue. I've added it to the wikt link there.
Regarding the
WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus against keeping or disambiguating, which leaves soft redirecting and deleting as options. Which of those will work better depends on the likelihood that this title could support an article on the idiom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Soft redirecting causes more harm than good. With those, we haven't even a trace of what people actually end up at, and so no way to make our lofty decisions. I note that in my short time here at RfD, almost all soft redirects have been essentially others saying "I can't be bothered to find a better target". Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The better target is wikt:Pain in the ass (or wikt:Pain in the arse). We can't hard-redirect to Wiktionary, so soft redirect. Is your "not a trace" argument about stats? The tool keeps stats for soft redirects. ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็ʕ•͡ᴥ•ʔ ก้้้้้้้้้้้ Ivanvector (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was indeed about not having stats on it. I've no doubt you are right or you would not have said so: therefore I follow you. There is a polar bear in the way. Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have given you an example. So I will:
Jesusian - stats. As a bonus, it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, they should both be the same per
WP:ENGVAR, and it's best to stick our heads out here and let our "arse" follow, I think we are all agreed on that? Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

As there's no article yet, is there a consensus for a soft reirect? Widefox; talk 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see so. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Comment. At interviews I was conducting, I invented an acronym "
big hitter" as a signal to my partner interviewer that he (invariably a he) was a hole in the air, an oxygen thief. The interview would conclude promptly and politely. Similarly with PITA, one can always happen to have some Greek-style bread handy. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment the status quo is broken - we have no navigation to the wikt entry which is the current primary meaning. Suggest pragmatic soft redirect for both ENGVARs. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 2015 (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.

Miguk

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 some disagreement about where to redirect, some consensus for deletion, and search results should allow access to both discussed retargeting options. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very sure of what that was meant to be.

talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a redirect from non-English. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2015 (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.

Integrity (mathematics)

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 no consensus, default to delete. That's not a result I generally use, but in this case, there's not consensus to keep as is, the term "integrity" isn't used at either Integer or Integral domain, and there are no mathematical uses listed at Integrity (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-brainer retarget to

talk) 05:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep A commutative ring having at least two elements and bereft of divisors of zero is called an integer ring (or an integrity domain).<ref>Ioan Purdea, Gheorghe Pic, ''Tratat de algebră modernă'', Vol. 1, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 1977, p. 219</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should this target to integral domain then? Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    symbolic logic and stuff like that, and still have to kinda draw pictures for anything more complicated than subtending the angle A) then it is genuinely confusing to people who assume I mean integration (mathematics) → Integral
    .
The ref that User talk:Tgeorgescu gives is of little relevance to an English-speaking audience. Assuming as I do that mathematics is kinda the nearest thing one gets to truth, in the sense that once an axiom is proven then it is proven forever, then I am sure it is a good book: but not helpful. The sticking point is how to disambiguate the various English language derivations of the word "integer" (integral, integrity, integration, and so on).
They may be differentiated (linguistically differentiated: not differentiation (mathematics) → Derivative) in Romanian, which has the usual Latinate rules, but are ambiguous in English (the title in Romanian I presume is Modern Treatise on Algebra or Treatise on Modern Algebra, that doesn't take a lot of doing except to know which is modern, the algebra or the treatise: that is a similar kind of ambiguity we have with this redirect in English).
If as I suggest it is retargeted to the DAB, we can add a section "Mathematics" and fill in many of the good suggestions and others found here. My reason for not saying an outright delete, is that I can imagine sciency or mathematicky people with some knowledge having a clue to type "Integrity (mathematics)" to get a specific DAB on its various meanings in various mathematical fields: that would be the perfect solution, but let's do it at the main DAB first, then split it out later, if we need to (
WP:NOTFINISHED). Si Trew (talk
)
  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say retarget to
    integration (mathematics) which is definitely a distinct mathematical concept; let's not confuse them. I'm no expert but I have done some university-level calculus. Integrity, I believe (if I understand correctly), refers to the property of being (or not being) an integer, and is not related to integration/differentiation at all. As for commutative rings, that's beyond my knowledge. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not happy with that, @
Modulo arithmetic for that matter, or at least Modulus. Si Trew (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
My modesty prevailed as usual. I worked for eighteen months doing the stuff your mobile phone works with, at the back end, with oscilloscopes and stuff, so I am well aware of what an IQ domain is, which is essentially on the scope you put Q on the vertical axis and I on the horizontal axis, as complex numbers, and you get a lovely pattern. (Described at In-phase and quadrature components, which is why it is I and Q.) And it's hard to describe but mathematicians kinda think like that. Ask them to make change out of a fiver and they can't, but give them 6i3q and they can immediately imagine it. I just have Stroud, Ken (1988). Engineering Mathematics (3rd ed.). Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2015 (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.

GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen

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 as {{
primary topic for the title, but there's no consensus to change it for now. Deryck C. 19:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Implausible.

talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as
    CamelCase on old titles: this was a very ancient creation by User:BryceHarrington back in 2öö1, and is a remnant I think, since it has been moved several times since: but we can moved it on too, a camel doesn't take much of a kick to move it... Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually
WP:NATURAL disambiguation anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I take that back: it's the obvious way to disambiguate. What I was floundering towards is that
WP:COMMONNAME is still in play, so that is still at Elizabeth II (to disambiguate from Elizabeth I but not at Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor Elizabeth Secondus for example, even though that's how it appears (abbreviated) on every British (and Canadian) coin. (Also oddly, to me – and I am no monarchist – HMQ as an abbreviation for "Her Majesty the Queen" is red, and HMK → a contested GNG stub at Hindu Makkal Katchi). Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That would only make sense ifHer Majesty The Queen existed, which it does ( →
I am your wery umble servant, Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep the redirect, or retarget it to DAB George Hamilton Gordon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to retargeting to the dab if the more typical George Hamilton Gordon Aberdeen were retargeted there as well. George Aberdeen also redirects to his article. I suspect the 4th Earl is
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, however, having been a UK prime minister. --BDD (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Do I hear the sound of a vermic tin-can opener? Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen both →
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the sometime Prime Minister (and "Earl Aberdeen" likewise, does an Earl trump a Lord and a Marquess trump both, I am never sure?). I think we should follow the lines of BDD's reasoning, wherever that leads us. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I may be in over my head here; I don't know the British peerage system this well. Does it make sense for the Earldom of Aberdeeen to be discussed on a page nominally about a marquess...ship(?)? Especially since it looks like there were at least seven Earls of Aberdeen before the newer title was created. (Side note: I may never see "marquess" without thinking it's a feminine title first.) I'll check with our local experts to see if they can weigh in here. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So
back translated. It is not so much feminine, the "-ette", as diminutive, but has come kinda to mean so in English: Cosette is not a small Cos, but casette is a small case. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
An Earl is a Lord kinda by "inheritance" in the
marquee (tent) is easy to make. With me so far? Peerage of the United Kingdom will put you into your misery. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely irrelvant comment, but nearly so. I just realised "homophonic" and "homophobic" are just one tiny slip away on a QWERTY (and an Hungarian QWERTZ that I use, and a Belgian AZERTY that I use when translating French). We better be en guarde for that, just as typos and all that, if they come up here.
Homophobe similarly. DOI: I'm not gay, I'm an unhappily married man.wife made me strike that Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I hope you don't mind that I've hatted this, as it is in fact entirely off-topic, and filling these threads with off-topic cruft makes some people unreasonably angry for whatever reason. There is a "not to be confused" hatnote at
homophobe, but not the reverse. That's about the best we could do, if this were to come up. Ivanvector (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Quite right for you to do so, but I drop a lot of things I mean to kinda sort out even though I do have pen and paper and a list of things to sort out, so occasionally I just knock em in, on the understanding that people like you will know they are kinda meaningless but not harmful. My mind just shoots off in a million directions at the same time, and I don't take any drugs beyond cigarettes and booze, that is SCARY to think what it might be like if I took the hard stuff. I bet it would be brilliant: Once. Then it would be awful: Forever. Si Trew (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @BDD: is it good form to continue a discussion after relisting, in the bit before the relisting? (You started so I continued.) I know in theory the dates should pick it all out, but I tend to kinda draw a line under it when the line is drawn for relisting. Similarly, I tend to regard any !vote I have made before the relisting as not requiring me explicitly to strike it if I change my mind. What would be your (and others') opinion on it? This is a bit off-topic of course and better for the talk page, but I mention it here first. It came to my notice because WP's notification said that BDD had pinged me but I couldn't see any such comment below the relisting line. Si Trew (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's fine to let the timestamps speak for themselves. And a good closer should notice if you have two votes, but I think it's always best practice to strike an older one. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WT:RFD: I'm happy to do it but happy for you to, saving you replying here. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep for now. Typical. I put in the Queen, BDD follows with the King, but User:Ivanvector trumps: to which I submissively agree. I did actually look for {{WikiProject Monarchy}} and so on but couldn't find anything where we could ping them: What do you have? Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for that
WikiProject British Royalty. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@

talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

There are some other questions, but the main one I was getting at: Does it make sense for Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen to Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, when the latter is a newer style? Surely Earl of Aberdeen and Marquess of Aberdeen can't be synonymous. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 21:37, 4 July 2015 (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.

Unavailable

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 retarget to Unavailability. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm

WP:ORPHAN
(though of course that does not rule it out as a redirect, but is perhaps indicative): nothing links there (except things related to this discussion) though stats say it gets hits above noise level (about three a day on average, with a spike to 23 on 14 May, for some reason). It is quite old, though (2009).

We could retarget it as {{

R from opposite}} to Availability, which is what the R Available
targets.

Or as a more-specific target about telephony, we do have Busy signal (to which Br. Eng. Engaged tone redirects) but I think there is (or was before voicemail etc.) a distinction between the line being in use, and it being unavailable due to a fault, been disconnected, nonexistent number, etc. Line unavailable, Unavailable tone and Unavailable signal, Unavailable message are all red. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtainable tone (the usual phrase in the U.K.) and Unobtainable signal are also red. Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Busy tone → Busy signal — adding only for completeness, nothing wrong with it. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2015 (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/2015_June_30&oldid=1037879491"