June 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2013
Anglo-American playing card
- 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 and retarget, respectively. --
BDD (
talk)
16:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- The pagehistory has some very old content which was later merged to other pages. In order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA, the page must be kept. That said, I see the potential confusion since the two capitalization variants point to different destinations. I think the correct target should be
Standard 52-card deck. The versions of the redirect to
playing card (and there are several in history) always pointed to a sub-section. That subsection now lists
Standard 52-card deck as the "main article" for the subsection. I think pointing directly to the main article would be most helpful to readers. There's not a bad choice, though, since both pages are well cross-linked.
Be bold and make the change.
Rossami
(talk)
16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
-
Standard 52-card deck per Rossami. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
21:21, 6 July 2013 (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.
Gastrointestinal Tract
- 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 and retarget, respectively. Based on the pages' histories, it doesn't appear either of them were ever standalone articles, though this does not preclude someone from overwriting
Gastrointestinal tract with a broader article and retargeting
Gastrointestinal Tract there. --
BDD (
talk)
17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:26, 28 June 2013 (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.
Geography of the Republic of Ireland
- 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 and keep, respectively. --
BDD (
talk)
17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:25, 28 June 2013 (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.
Visible Light
- 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 and keep, respectively. --
BDD (
talk)
19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I think the light article is displaying
WP:Systematic bias... it really should be more generalized. --
65.94.79.6 (
talk)
23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
No change Light This seems like a discussion that belongs in an article talk page, not in RFD. Be aware that there is a long history here, with changes over time in the way these articles relate to one another. There are discussions in the talk pages (and archives) of both of the pages to which you link. As presently constructed,
Light is specifically about visible light, and is the appropriate target for the redirect.
Visible spectrum discusses features of the spectrum itself. There have been several proposals to merge the two articles, which were rejected. --
Srleffler (
talk)
04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Adjusted my !vote–I just now realized that there were two redirects, with different capitalization, pointing to different articles. This does not require an RfD to fix. I have adjusted them both to point to
Light, based on the consensus so far. --
Srleffler (
talk)
05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Light, of course. When one wants to refer to the spectrum, s/he refers to spectrum. I suppose that Srleffler still misses the point…
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
13:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Light. Having different redirects based on
case is nonsensical. Actually, having separate articles on
visible light and
visible spectrum is nonsensical as well, but I guess that's beyond the scope of this poll.
Zueignung (
talk)
05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Light for both, per the common meaning of the word "light" being "visible electromagnetic radiation". We can deal with the merge of
visible spectrum into
light another day. --
The Anome (
talk)
18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Light. Although, I do respect what User:Srleffler is saying, I think the logical target for both redirects is Light. As a an aside, I don't agree that two main space articles should be merged. As Srleffler pointed out there are enough distinctions between the two articles to merit separate articles. This became apparent to me after reading both of the them. Also, former proposals for merger have been rejected.--
Steve Quinn (
talk)
04:11, 1 July 2013 (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.
Direct Realism
Homo sapiens sapiens
- 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 and retarget, respectively. --
BDD (
talk)
19:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:19, 28 June 2013 (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.
History of Western philosophy
- 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 and retarget, respectively, and both pointing to the #Western philosophy section. This does seem like a case where the redirect should be overwritten by an article, however. --
BDD (
talk)
17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:18, 28 June 2013 (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.
Arts and crafts
- 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 leave different. There is a strong precedent that capitalization variant redirects should point to the same target page, however that is a precedent, not an absolute rule. Arms & Hearts makes a compelling argument in this case that the capitalization makes the second a proper noun and thus that a different target is justified. No counter-arguments were offered.
Implied but not explicitly mentioned here was the option to retarget the proper noun version to
Arts & Crafts (disambiguation). I do not consider the other uses sufficiently notable to justify the deviation from the primary meaning. That is an ordinary-editor choice, though - not part of the RfD closure.
Even though this discussion was thinly attended, I am going to exercise discretion and close it with the decision to allow different destinations.
Rossami
(talk)
18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:14, 28 June 2013 (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.
Feudal Society
- 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 and retarget, respectively. --
BDD (
talk)
19:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:12, 28 June 2013 (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.
Logical Fallacy
- 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 both to
Formal fallacy. (
NAC)
Armbrust
The Homunculus
08:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
What should the target be?
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- This whole set of articles is a mess and looks to be in need of reorganisation. For now, retarget to the dab page. —
This, that and
the other (talk)
07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I would have expected both to redirect to
Fallacy, which has a prominent link to the dab page at the top. I find it problematic to be redirecting one term to a dab page for a different term. If this is a (relatively) common occurrence, then I object; if it's not, then let's not encourage it. -
dcljr (
talk)
05:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
-
Formal fallacy. The lede of the
fallacy article defines a
formal fallacy as one resulting from improper logic and an
informal fallacy as one unrelated to logic, and
mathematical fallacy's second paragraph specifies that it uses a different meaning of the word "fallacy", so unless my logic is fallacious it follows that "logical fallacy" is a synonym for "formal fallacy" and ought to redirect to that article. Redirecting to
fallacy or the dab page would be correct but not as precise as they might be. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
22:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget both to Formal fallacy per Arms & Hearts. That is the most precise answer (though that target should probably be better cross-linked to the other proposed targets in case that's not exactly what the reader needed – I'll add a hatnote in anticipation of the redirect).
Rossami
(talk)
18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and retarget to
Formal fallacy, although redirection to
Fallacy is not much of a problem. — |
J
~
Pæst|
20:35, 15 July 2013 (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.
Un-word of the year (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 no consensus to delete. That said, there is also not a clear consensus whether to keep as-is or to reverse the pagemove. I find the arguments to keep as is to be stronger but consider that an ordinary-editor conclusion and not part of the closure. "No consensus to delete" is sufficient for now - the rest of the debate can be resumed on the respective Talk pages.
Rossami
(talk)
18:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Article was originally created with an unnecessary disambiguation, in analogy to
Word of the year (Germany), where the dab is necessary. However, the selection of un-words is apparently unique to Germany.
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
12:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Important addendum: I just saw on German Wikipedia that there is a Swiss
de:Unwort des Jahres (Schweiz), too, but we don't have an article about it. If you feel that my page move was premature, feel free to undo it, create
Un-word of the year (Switzerland) and turn
Un-word of the year into a disambiguation page. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
13:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Whether page move was “premature” or not, you definitely should recall
WP:Redirect#KEEP point 4. Throwing a “Delete vote” in such circumstances demonstrates an incompetent deletionism.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
05:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Delete until
Un-word of the year (Switzerland) will be created.
Cavarrone
08:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Keep (or rather, restore page at original title). When I created the article, I wanted to show right in the title that the topic is strictly Germany-centered, and does not have any universal claim. This is why I chose
Un-word of the year (Germany) as page title, and not
Un-word of the year. Indeed, I was following the page names at the German Wikipedia, being aware that there was a Swiss counterpart. Though not being named "un-word", the
American Dialect Society also picks an equivalent in their
Word of the Year choices, in the categories "Most Unnecessary", "Most Outrageous" or "Most Euphemistic". Please note that this discussion initiated by
Florian Blaschke is more about the page title. Even if consensus should show that the page is not to be moved back, the redirect should be kept, because several other Wikipedia articles link to it.--
FoxyOrange (
talk)
09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Without another article by the same name, (Germany) is not a disambiguator; we don't use parenthetical terms just to give more information about the topic. There are literally thousands of articles whose title lengths could be artificially lengthened by such practices, to the ultimate detriment of our readers. --
BDD (
talk)
19:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. A plausible alternative title, as evidenced by the above argument that it ought to be the title of the article; not misleading;
WP:R#KEEP #4 applies. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
22:52, 6 July 2013 (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.