Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2016.

Canadia (thing)

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. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect of no value at all - ambiguous, and appropriate to none of the entries on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2016 (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.

Jihyangmountaininfo

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. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created when the article was originally translated from Korean. It is meaningless and can only cause confusion. It has not been around for very long. My Gussie (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC) (added) My Gussie (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (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 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to be referring to a subject called a "List Field" as referenced in this revision of Lists (jousting). However, this information seems to be absent from the target article, making these redirects misleading in their current state due to failing to lead the reader to information about the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2016 (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.

Lists about Mr. Burns

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) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such list of lists exists at the target article. However, this redirect has history as an article, but it doesn't look like it would survive an

WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (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.

Evry1 & Ery1

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) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These variations of the word are not listed at the target (a disambiguation page), so readers looking up these terms to find subjects with titles with these unique stylizations will be misled due to not finding any applicable subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect,
WP:REDIR
for the purposes of redirects, and when they should be deleted or kept.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Ery1" I'm not sure. If this really refers to a chemical compound, as pointed out above, we should retarget this to the corresponding article. If this is also used in SMS style short communication we might even need to disambiguate this abbreviation.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone discuss things with the people at Wikiprojects related to biology and chemistry? Bring them into the conversation? "Ery1" and "ERY1" being possibly retargeted to an arcane chemical compound's page is a move that we should have experts look at. (Personally, even though I did well enough in chemistry at an academic level to the point of earning an A.S. in the subject, just a few years ago, my grasp of advanced organic chemistry is rusty at best. This is neither here nor there, though.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. There is no page in article space that uses either of these terms, nothing on chemicals, nothing on texting, nothing on enzymes. There just isn't any place to retarget them. And they get almost no use. — Gorthian (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (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.

Every man jack

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) 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the redirect's target is a disambiguation page that isn't a match or a punctuation variation of the redirect, the redirect pointing there is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to regurgitate stuff and would be CC-VIO if I did and OR and whatnot. My job is to take people where they want to go. "jack" is an interesting word that means pretty much anything, as you can see from the DAB at
jack-of-all-trades, who ain't worth jack split, Jack Horner over there in the corner, a trolley jack, a lumberjack,, Monterey Jack, jack of diamonds, and every man jack. What other kinda jack you want? you have Jack Lemmon, Jack shit, Jack the bloke who played in those films sometimes, you remember, it was late and in black and white, Jack-o'-lantern
(one of the best members of the O'Lantern family, would light the room up just by coming in).
Not to put too fine a point on it, before you want "every man jack", start to try to enumerate all the "jacks" you might mean. Once you have that infinte set, try to pare it down. When you have done so, add them to the DAB at Jack. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Si. Sounds like you've got a good start on the everybody primary-topic article. ;-) I wanted to tell you that the new page-stats tool excludes bots by default, so whatever hits you see are from Real Users®. — Gorthian (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2016 (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.

Kathak Dancing

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) 14:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Kathak - Prisencolin (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2016 (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.

Annie Bonar Law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27#Annie Bonar Law

All About the Celebrity World

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) 14:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a book or film? I don't see it in the searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (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.

All by Myself(Grey's Anatomy)

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) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. Also, the version of this title with a space, All by Myself (Grey's Anatomy), already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (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.

All about ... redirects

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) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirects since they are not alternate titles for their respective targets and since Wikipedia is a work in progress. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All About Hawaii is a 1960s-later used alternate title for Thrum's Hawaiian Annual, no idea why I didn't capitalize the a. It's just a redirect so I'm not losing sleep either way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @Kintetsubuffalo: Fair enough. I was a bit confused regarding that redirect anyways since it didn't target Hawaii. I'm going to withdraw that one and add the alternative title to the target. If I somehow fail to get around to that, feel free to update the target article with that information. (In other news, I'm having a bit of an issue finding a reference to prove this is an alternate title, though I would believe the connection to be true.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kintetsubuffalo: Ah, it's on the image used on the article to identify the subject. I'll be adding the information to the article shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a book series called All About? It's a weird selection of topics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a Children's science DVD series called "All About". See, e.g., [5]. That means these shouldn't redirect to general topics, but should be redlinks waiting for someone to write an article about the DVDs. —hike395 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These mostly seem to be mistakes. Just delete them please. W Nowicki (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (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.

All=Ireland Senior Hurling Final

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. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "=" makes this an unlikely typo. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (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.

S truman

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) 14:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a

WP:PTM (with president precedent) since Harry S. Truman is never referred to by his middle + last name. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:QXZ

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) 14:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Cross-namespace redirect that has gone almost entirely unused since its creation in 2012 and does little but pollute the Wikipedia namespace. "QXZ" derives from

Qxz, an alt account in 2007 of Gurch, who created the ad template images. The redirect came up for discussion in a poorly-attended RfD in 2013. In that its creator noted that it was little-used, which continues to be true, because the template has two more logical shortcuts. (Which are also both CNRs, but it seems too late to do anything about those.) I've pinged him/her for this but it seems unlikely we'll hear anything as he/she's not edited in 9 months.  — Scott • talk 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2016 (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.

Municipal Electricity Authority

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) 14:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion, since redirect was a result of the target page being created at the wrong title, which is pretty much an implausible misnomer. Paul_012 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, for some reason, I have a block on the name of this org and am not competent to deal with this article's title. Thanks for fixing. Seligne (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia exists as a redirect to Plant Scherer, a power station in Georgia (US state) that is partly owned by an organisation named "Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia". That redirect is not good as they (part) own five power stations [7] and they serve nearly 50 settlements in Georgia. I haven't investigated fully, but I suspect that they are notable enough for an article - if so I'd be very tempted to retarget this to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The term does have the broad sense of "local city utility" rather than the wrong name for another company. Further, if created in error, all the more reason to delete it. Keeping it makes searching for rightly made entities better. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many municipal electricity authorities, it seems, and so although the Thai Metropolitan E. A. is rightly placed in the absence of any other, we don't have to block the search engine with an {{R from incorrect name}} that was just created in errorm (I have done so myself when creating translated articles and just slipped, not saying this one was translated, but I can see how it happens, you have the name of the thing so much in your head you bash it in at the wrong title, kinda hypercorrection). Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (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.

Interstate 13 in California

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 26#Interstate 13 in California

Scottish and Irish ale

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. WJBscribe (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch ale. They aren't discussed together, and there's no clear reason why they should be. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Scottish ale and Irish ale aren't the same thing. But neither are Scottish ale and Scotch ale. The Scottish and Irish ale article was originally like this. At 10 years distance I can't exactly recall why I made the move I did, unless at that time I didn't consider that a redirect would be left behind, and I thought I was replacing Scottish and Irish ale with Irish ale. There are two possible ways forward - one is that Scottish and Irish ale is restored to a disambiguation page, or it is deleted. There are so few pageviews (Scottish and Irish ale is such an unlikely search term) that I would support delete, but I wouldn't be averse to a disamb page with the targets being Beer in Scotland, Beer in Ireland. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they were discussed in the same place when you made it. What would be the difference between Scottish and Scotch ale? Is it that Scotch ale is a distinct style, whereas "Scottish ale" would be any ale from Scotland? --BDD (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2016 (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.

Raymond Chen (Microsoft)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27#Raymond Chen (Microsoft)

Hit on

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) 14:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit I was not even aware of the use of "hit on" in the sense of "flirting", and would only have recognised the first two senses here in the area of "have an idea" or "find out". Thus it certainly isn't an unambiguous synonym and probably doesn't need a redirect at all. : Noyster (talk), 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to me much more likely that someone is going to be searching for an article on flirting when typing "hit on" than searching for the concept of having an idea. In the first instance they are using a common alternative term for the name of the article, in the second case they are looking for a dictionary definition, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The term gets an average of four hits a day, so it would be appropriate to keep it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common word. It's a common
go over or get under or go through. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We do apparently have put on. My success rate so far is three out of four. give over, mind yourself, hang out, hang up, hang to, hang down, hang by, hang fire? Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIC. Geddit? Come to? Come again? Come by? Come over? Si Trew (talk
)
It does work if you believe as I do that since redirect titles are indistinguishable from article titles for a user searching, they should generally follow the same rules. Numerous exceptions, of course, to help people search, but when you type in a title in whatever way you search, you don't know straight away whether it's a redirect or the article proper, so they should if they can follow the same naming conventions. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians

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) 14:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't linked from a lot of places, not sure what it is supposed to mean, there was never a "party" by such name to my knowledge. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:38, 19 September 2016 (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.

Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page

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. Thanks to Tavix for the history merge. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I messed up the title when I first saved the page. There is no history worth saving. It should be obvious what happened so please don't go around leaving passive aggressive robo notes on my talk page.Sturmovik (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (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.

Google Germany

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) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22#Google_Spain. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Delete as per the previous discussion, and at random I checked whether we had Google France, Google Hungary, Google Spain, Google Japan, which we don't, I agree with Gorthian that this is probably leading people up the wrong garten path. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2016 (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.

Mongolian studies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 26#Mongolian studies

Physical firewall

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 Firewall. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "physical" refers to as it won't be physical if it refers to computer software anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Firewall. Physical firewall has referred to both the construction firewall as well as computer hardware firewalls, boxes that exist physically in a room. Other firewalls that are actual objects can be found on the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MER-CIMER-C. A Google Books search shows that this refers nearly exclusively to the current target. A hatnote to the DAB page would work just fine for those using the word in the non-technical sense. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Firewall (computing) needs to be improved to cover this aspect but that's not a reason to delete this redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Firewall. The thing is, in the computing field, it's a dead metaphor, people have forgotten about a "physical" firewall (construction) when the term is pervasive and can be surprised to find there is such a thing as a real firewall to stop real fires spreading in real buildings. The fact that User:Patar knight's Google Books overwhelmingly shows the term being used for computing infrastructure does not really help anything except to prove my point (and shows, I forget what the essay or topic is on WP, but a tendency for WP and the Internet world in general to emphasise computer-related topics etc because people who have computers are the people who edit Wikipedia, and the people who publish books on Google are the people who understand how to publish books on Google, etc: there is plenty of woodware legislation etc on how to build a firewall in your jurisdiction).
My argument is that many people have forgotten or never knew the etymology of the word, why it is called a "firewall" in the first place. That we have "virtual firewall" emphasises that, beause in the real world you actually have to build a wall with noncombustible materials (preferably not asbestos, thanks) and so the metaphorical sense is just now totally detached from the real one. I was initially with User:SilkTork about creating a DAB but the existing one is just fine, R it there. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add salt to the fire, we don't have a computing metaphor for a fire safe (->
white fivers etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"Physical firewall" is a term of art in computing, "fire safe" is not. Readers are served well by the hatnotes.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak retarget to Firewall per AngusWOOF. The concept of "firewall" as described and defined in the current target article is a software medium, which is not a physical medium. The term itself is vague and is probably too ambiguous to refer to any specific alternate item and is also not a spelling and/or punctuation match for the ambiguous page Firewall (my "delete" rationale.) However, as a compromise, some of the entries on the disambiguation page are physical mediums, so that could make some sense, but it wouldn't be my first choice given the scenario (my "weak retarget" rationale.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to why I think "delete" over "retarget" would probably be more helpful: at the present time, there is no section on Firewall dedicated to firewalls as a physical medium. If this redirect were retargeted there, readers would be unclear which subjects in the page are considered "physical" since they were not redirected to a section pointing them to that specific information. To compare this to a redirect that forwards the reader to a section on a disambiguation page where they would find the information they are looking for, see Law violation (err... See what it used to be: it previously targeted a section on Violation named "Law", but it seems that situation was changed back in May by BD2412.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall. Just in this discussion, it's clear how ambiguous this phrase is. I tend to agree with Si; there's a distinct bias towards computer-related stuff on the internet. But my first thought was, of course it means Firewall (construction). Obviously, others don't agree. So let's give searchers a chance to make up their own minds. Deleting wouldn't help; this gets used a good bit. — Gorthian (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall due to the ambiguity and lack of an agreed upon definition above and seemingly in sourcing.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall per the discussion above. The computing meaning of the phrase might be the one that shows up most often in reliable sources, but the reason is probably that the other firewalls are inherently physical and don't need to be explicitly specified as such in sources. And to address Steel1643's observation that there isn't a relevant section in the dab page: any of the four items listed in the "lede" section are relevant: "physical firewall" can be a synonym for the first two, a subtopic of the third one, or a vaguely plausible incorrect name for the fourth one (at least for me: I'm not careful with my English and I can easily confuse a physics firewall with a physical one). Still, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate dab. Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2016 (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/2016_September_19&oldid=1142586947"