Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2015.

Template:Unit

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. I'll replace instances of these first; let me know if I overlook or mess up anything. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate and delete. {{Convert}} covers. Using "unit" for conversion of quantity is misleading and wrong. The word 'unit' in this context means something else (mile ~ kilometre, but not 1 mile = 1 kilometre). On top of this, the documentation of {{Convert}} is huge already, we should not use mind space to explain this marginal option. Deprecate, substreplace with {{Convert}} and delete. DePiep (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Half a day later I have added

Template:Units and Template:Unité for being similar. @Jimp and SimonTrew: pinged. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's a duplication of {{convert}} now unused. Jimp 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Delete all three. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect, so isn't a duplication, it's always been a redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added formally. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the French Wikipedia it does function more like {{val}} does here but the syntax is different to {{val}} as it is to {{convert}}. Having them redirect to either would introduce problems because of this "false friend" problem. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added and tagged formally. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 28 May 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.

Synthetic actor

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 Virtual actor. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is inappropriate for this term as it isn't mentioned there and doesn't refer to an "actor" generally. "Synthetic actor refers to a computer-generated entity in a virtual world" according to source. However, I'm not seeing any widespread use of the term and it isn't used anywhere at Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be deleted. Tavix | Talk  18:44, 27 May 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.

Upcoming Albums in 2009

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) 15:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing/nonsense. "Upcoming" hasn't referred to 2009 in a long time... Tavix | Talk  18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as outdated and an unlikely search term. Also, there are no incoming links to the redirect from the article or talk spaces; any links are from user-type pages. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 27 May 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.

Characteristic exponent of a field

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 Procedural close, redirect has been boldly retargeted to Characteristic_(algebra) and new content written there. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:15, 27 May 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.

St Vincent's Catholic Primary School

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) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject not mentioned in article. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:RFD#D2 confusing and as above. The school in Mill Hill[SV 1] would be a different one from that in Acton.[SV 2]
That being said, nothing links to it, but I presume it was in an article at some time.
  1. ^ "Caritas Christi Urget Nos" [The love of Christ urges us to care for each other] (in Latin). The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1EJ. Retrieved 28 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ "We grow, learn and achieve by following Christ". Pierrepoint Road, Acton, London W3 9JR. Retrieved 28 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 28 May 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.

Wang Zongyao

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Wang Zongyao

ZONG

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. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB at Zong, per my rationale at #ZoNG, below. I'm not convinced people searching for this particularlyoverwhelmingly want the mobile phone operator. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 May 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.

Because of Eve

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) 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect redirect. These are two separate films (oddly enough, Joseph Crehan stars in both). Maybe someone saw the DVD cover and didn't read it carefully. Anyway, I don't think Because of Eve is worth an article, and probably neither is Street Corner, but that's another issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 27 May 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.

ZoNG

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 Zong. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is dumb enough to write 3 letters capital and one letter small. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:20, 27 May 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.

Remote Access Trojan

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. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to section

WP:RFD#Remote Access Trojans (RATs)
, yesterday. While it is briefly mentioned at the current target, this section gives more information.

(I would be

WP:BOLD and do so but I think that might confuse things while the other is under discussion, or be taken as pulling the rug from under others' feet.) Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 27 May 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.

40 series

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. Further action, including dabifying, can be done
BOLDly. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to delete this redirect so that a future article can go here. Right now its target is an article about a Japanese diesel multiple unit train introduced in the 1970s. However, in Japanese railroading "40 series" by itself can refer to a much older train, an electric multiple unit of the 1930s. Although the English Wikipedia has no article about this older type, the Japanese Wikipedia has an extensive one, so an English one should be written eventually. But if the current pattern of English article titles for Japanese trains is followed, the expected title for such an article is presently taken by this redirect. In fact the only current use of the redirect was actually supposed to refer to the older 40 series type, not the KiHa 40 series. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure what you mean by "should be renamed...", 40 series (disambiguation) and Series 40 (disambiguation) are both red. Obviously if we make it a DAB we should create the standard "(disambiguation)" form, and probably the other added as a likely R, but Series 40 is an article not a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Series 40" should be renamed (probably to
Nokia Series 40) to allow "Series 40" to point to the future disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
With you, it was the "renamed to be a disambiguation page" that got me. Series 30, similarly, is an article, but unlike for Nokia Series 40 we don't have a redirect at Nokia Series 30. It should probably be treated similarly if we decide to make a DAB for series 40 things. Precedents for "Series X" being a short title to a longer article name include:
Perhaps surprisingly, my search for "prefix:Series" returns just 51 results. Most seem to have been prefixed as suggested, e.g. "Psion Series 7", and I think these are just remnants of various moves, on the whole. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 29 May 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.

Taured

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) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 27 May 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.

Wednesday Group

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. One editor argued for keep, but they aren't that convinced about the exact target either. Deryck C. 20:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. The Wednesday Group appears to be a book directed towards women. It is about problems in their relationships (I think?). Though I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with politics.

WP:SURPRISE for people looking for info on the book, and get taken to a page about a political party. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It's going to have to be mentioned somewhere, though. Otherwise it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 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.

The Party of No

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. Deryck C. 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible attack page; this appears to be a satirical term to describe the party, but since the term seems to be somewhat common, I am not sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I made this page, out of agreement with the epithet. Upon review it makes better sense as its own article or perhaps as a redirect to some page regarding criticism of the US Republican party.
    talk) 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I can't find such a page. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:40, 31 May 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.

Reenergizational

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 all as unlikely search terms for the target, except retarget
Re-Energized. Deryck C. 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Is this even a word? I can't find any actual usage of this anywhere. Not even Wiktionary has an entry... Tavix | Talk  07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would readers searching for these terms want the general idea of energy, though? For that matter, would readers search for these terms? --BDD (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any other articles they would be searching for by using these terms. It is possible that a reader would search using one of these terms; I certainly don't see any benefit to deleting these redirects. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are implausible search terms and I'm still unconvinced that it's a word. Tavix | Talk  22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fair to say these are real words. There's probably a more linguistically correct way of saying this, but English is an extensible language. Something that energizes could be called energizational; something that reenergizes could be called reenergizational. (I think energizing and reenergizing would be the more common adjectival forms, but that's not especially important for this discussion.) We should be asking in what context a reader would likely encounter these terms. Unless their command of English is extremely basic, they can probably identify "energy" as the root of these words. So I suspect someone searching for these terms is not just looking for the general concept of energy. We're
    not a dictionary, and even if we were, the target article doesn't have these words or anything like them. We have to do better than this. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding these to the nom. We should first decide where these (shorter) noun (and verb) forms go, and let the "-al" forms follow. However, none of these – either in the original nom or my addendum – has any incoming links except those related to this discussion.
(
Re-Energized is an article, a song by Kim English, to which Re-energized
redirects. That's fine.)
  • Adding to nom:
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.

Sutton College

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 move
WP:COMMONNAME, but it seems safe here—surely people were already referring to it as "Sutton College". Si Trew is correct that a dab is not desirable here, so I'll simply hatnote to the former target. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned at target article. SCOLA is renaming itself as Sutton College on June 1 (typing this now so can copy later[1]) and would prefer outright deletion in lieu of move. Launchballer 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or turn into a disambiguation page - The former name of one of Birmingham Metropolitan College's campuses, Sutton Coldfield College, is in one of the introductory paragraphs of the article, and often referred to as 'Sutton College'. J Di 10:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. Sutton Guardian
    {{subst:!}}page=6}}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we only have two, as far as I can tell. In that case, we're better off with a hatnote, per
WP:TWODABS. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 31 May 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.

Rod Blasonofabitch

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. Vandalism/attack page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page, despite the edit summary of the most recent recreation. Ordinarily I'd simply re-delete it, but the shitstorm kicked up by my previous re-deletion of what I interpreted as an attack has made me more attuned to process wanking. I don't see any sort of mention of this term in any of the Google News archives, and almost all of the hits from the regular search are either from user-edited sites or blogs. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 27 May 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.

List of people charged under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT

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. Looking at its original form, I strongly suspect it was
WP:MADEUP by some schoolkid who wanted to call some classmates terrorists. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It's a joke redirect by a kid at school making a joke about his friends. We probably can safely delete this. It's not a plausible redirect in its own right. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Target is not a list of people so charged. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I did a search for Section 213 to see if there is such a thing. There is, it is the section about "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant": "DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
  • (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
  • (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
  • (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'."
Then it's
WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, as well. Presumably later there is a section detailing the remedy if this clause is violated. Ultimately this is an amendment to US Code § 3003a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant] and does not of itself suggest any remedy (i.e. charge). Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 31 May 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_May_27&oldid=955513437"