February 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2015.
Terror (emotion)
- 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)
19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
I think it might be better at
Horror and terror but I am uncertain about this.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
23:44, 11 February 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.
Scared shitless
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 23#Scared shitless
🕷
- 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. This seems to be the emerging consensus for such Unicode symbols. Besides the discussion Gorobay linked to, there was also that for the snowman symbol
even more recently. --
BDD (
talk)
19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Implausible.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- ...that is to say, in every operating system that supports the Unicode
Supplementary Multilingual Plane and has fonts including this
Emoji/
Pictograph.
Si Trew (
talk)
03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep per Gorobay. On the other hand, it could also be used to redirect to a unicode page that describes the characters, if such a page exists (if not, then the redirect to spider is the best choice if the redirect is to exist). --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The relevant unicode block is
Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and almost all the characters in that table go to the depicted subject, e.g.
👩 →
Woman,
🐪 →
Dromedary,
🔧 →
Wrench,
💤 →
Sleep. If we want to change that, we should do so as part of a general discussion about rather than picking them off individually. I do note though that the U+1F57x block is not linked in that table (none of the characters in that row are in my font set so I can't easily tell where they should go).
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:05, 12 February 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.
Afro-Asian Bloc
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Afro-Asian Bloc
Jusik hoesa
- 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)
19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Vague. Seems to have something to do with Korea.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
23:04, 11 February 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.
Chusik hoesa
Publicly quoted companies
- 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
Public company. --
BDD (
talk)
19:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
A company being publicly quoted does not make it a corporation. Also just implausible.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
23:01, 11 February 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.
Secular-progressive
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Secular-progressive
Munificence
- 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
Generosity. No prejudice against a new discussion for
Liberality. While it does mean generosity, there's definitely some potential for confusion, and its redirect was added after most editors had already put their say in. --
BDD (
talk)
19:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Possible
WP:SURPRISE. Though merriam-web does say: " characterized by great liberality or generosity" as a definition of "munificent".
[1]
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Generosity. Its only use in an article, at
Mehmed I, has that as the intended meaning (a king can hardly endow liberalism in its political sense).
-
Liberality also redirects to
Liberalism, and perhaps should be taken together with this nom. Its only use in an article is at
Tomás mac Muircheartaigh Ó Ceallaigh, in a quote, where generosity (or
altruism) would seem to be the intended meaning.
Si Trew (
talk)
04:53, 12 February 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.
Criticism of conservatism
- 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)
19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Not particularly helpful because there is no specific section in the article to redirect to that discusses specifically about criticism of conservatism.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:50, 11 February 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.
Secular politics
- 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
Secularism. --
BDD (
talk)
19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Possibly POV.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:31, 11 February 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.
Democratic movements
- 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
History of democracy. --
BDD (
talk)
19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Just does not seem to be accurate.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Whatever the decision, I think this,
Democratic movement and
Democracy movement should redirect to the same target.
Si Trew (
talk)
04:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I note the only use of
Democratic movements in an article is the hatnote in
Democracy: ""Democratic movement" redirects here. For politics in general, see
Democratic movements. (So it would become circular if thence retargeted, the solution of course being to remove the hatnote.) It's a bit odd, though, to hatnote through a redirect: why not just say "For politics in general, see
Politics (duh!)".
- It's also used at
Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791/Archive 1, where
social movements would probably have been better anyway, but there's not much we can do about that (otherwise we could never change any thing referred to by an archive without its version).
Si Trew (
talk)
06:58, 15 February 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.
Mosaic faith
- 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. (non-admin closure)
Natg 19 (
talk)
18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
POV or possibly non-unique redirect.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
IZAK (
talk)
06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment add a hatnote for
syncretism if this is kept as is, or retarget to that. --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I wouldn't think so. Why would anyone use the word "mosaic" (as in the artistic sense) for a belief system? Please provide evidence that anyone uses the adjective "mosaic" in this context.
JFW |
T@lk
13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I can't provide evidence, only my personal anecdote: I had no idea that Mosaic was an adjectival form of Moses. Before reading far enough into this discussion, something akin to syncretism was what I was imagining the term meant. I'm happy to have learned something today, but as I consider myself a fairly literate person, I think I'm not the only one who would make the same mistake when seeing the term for the first time.
Ladyof
Shalott
17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Nor I; I had to google it. Syncretism defines a belief system formed from a patchwork of other religions, which brings to mind an artistic
mosaic. However this usage isn't apparent in sources; in fact the reverse is true: "mosaic syncretism" appears commonly in scholarly sources referring specifically to a belief system with Jewish and Christian components.
Ivanvector (
talk)
05:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is a poetic name for Judaism and has no alternative meanings. Currently no arguments provided as to what alternative meanings would need to be addressed.
JFW |
T@lk
13:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep An archaic term that doesn't stand on its own but is an appropriate redirect. Looking through the sources in Google books, as
IZAK has done, I'm not seeing any meaningful uses of the term to mean anything other than
Judaism, nor does
this mainspace search for uses of the term "mosaic faith" turn up anything meaningful other than references to Judaism as the predominant use of the term.
Alansohn (
talk)
15:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - This is a new term for me, but I have been convinced by the information given by Ivanvector and IZAK.
Ladyof
Shalott
17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per above. --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I kinda knew that "Mosaic" was an adjective, but it was refreshing to be reminded, and I agree that not knowing that is not a surefire indicator of stupidity.
Si Trew (
talk)
04:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per IZAK's search demonstrating that the term is used to refer to Judaism, and the absence of a comparable demonstration that the term is used to mean syncretism (as opposed to people thinking it could mean syncretism if you interpreted "mosaic" like the tile thing instead of Moses). –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:51, 17 February 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.
Legal stone
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Legal stone
Amon Twyman
- 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)
19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
The subject as mentioned in the redirect's target is not mention in the target's article. Thus, The connection is not clear and possibly misleading since it does not identify the subject of the redirect in the target article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I improved the redirect.
Deku-shrub (
talk)
20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I tend to disagree that the person is notable, having not been able to find anything written about him, only by him. However, that might indicate that he's notable within the field of transhumanism, or whatever field that is. Deleting the redirect encourages creation of an article.
Ivanvector (
talk)
00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete If the person is notable, which I doubt, there should be an article--making a redirect or everyone quoted as speaking for an organization is absurd, as absurd as redlining their name. WP remains searchable by google etc.
DGG (
talk )
16:59, 12 February 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 Dude with the Tude who can ruin your weekend
- 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)
18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
While technically correct (although I don't know what a tude is) this seems like an unlikely search term.
kelapstick(
bainuu)
13:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I believe that "tude" is short for "attitude", actually meaning "bad attitude". Nevertheless, I don't really expect anyone to search for this term.
Ladyof
Shalott
18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as far as I understand scripture, Death is not gendered, has no personality, and has no regard for human time constructions.
Ivanvector (
talk)
20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nonsense. Besides, Death is a totally swell guy. --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Per search engines, this phrase is used to refer to a character by the name of "Mr. Grimm" in the Twisted Metal video game series, but that character is not mentioned there. If mention of that character was added to
Twisted Metal, then this could be redirected to the section representing that character, but my guess is that the character is not notable enough to be able to overcome being called a
WP:NOTWIKIA violation if added to the article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:54, 12 February 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.
Reading rainbow dude
- 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)
18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Implausible typo. Very funny, but...
Can't speedy as it wasn't recently created.
Dweller (
talk)
13:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Question How many people (are there any at all?) type that phrase? We do have that data, don't we?
Ladyof
Shalott
21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, that info is always linked in the header of an Rfd nomination (see "stats" above) as long as the tool is working, which it often isn't. The answer in this case is zero. However we typically don't delete redirects unless there's some good reason to, because
redirects are cheap.
Ivanvector (
talk)
00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Looking back as far as
May of 2014, which is as far as the tool would let me go, the highest number of hits for this redirect was 158 in one month (and as low as 11). The 158 was in May of 2014, highest day was on 29 May with 69. That is not surprising as Burton launched the Kickstarter campaign on 28 May.--
kelapstick(
bainuu)
14:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the closing statement at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 28#Reading rainbow dude, this redirect's previous RfD nomination. Basically, it's old and harmless.
Steel1943 (
talk)
23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep' per Steel1943 , plausible search term --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, correct, old, harmless and most importantly used.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Plausible search term, redirects are cheap. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:55, 17 February 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.
King of Antarctica
- 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
Antarctica#Politics. --
BDD (
talk)
18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
He's not the King of Antarctica.
DrKiernan (
talk)
08:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- A major Norwegian newspaper,
Verdens Gang, has explicitly nicknamed him King of Antarctica. As a result, millions are now permanently introduced to this nickname and relate it to him. The visit was also a significant political and historical event, and this nickname has to be seen and understood in the said context, which gives it a special importance. This is the new folkekongen in spe! All this justifies a redirect from
King of Antarctica (nickname) to
Harald V of Norway (name). If a knowledge-seeking Wikipedia reader is looking for 'King of Antarctica', he/she will be guided to His Majesty's biography and learn that Harald was the first monarch being present there, that he has this nickname etc.
No More 18 (
talk)
21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- No, this redirect specifically implies that he is the King of Antarctica; he is not, and there is no such ruler. If this incident was notable enough to be included either in King Harald's article or in the article on the Norwegian tabloid, then we could retarget there, but it is not.
Wikipedia is not a tabloid.
Ivanvector (
talk)
21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
King Range (Antarctica), named by US-ACAN for Cdr. James P. King, USN, staff meteorological officer on Deep Freeze operations, 1962-64. (There is a DAB at
King Range, these words I scraped from the article not that DAB)
-
King Peak (Antarctica), named for
Clarence King, the first director of the USGS, 1879–81. (There is a DAB at
King Peak, these words I scraped from the article not that DAB)
- Unfortunately, King's association with Antarctica is not mentioned in his bio – perhaps it should be. RS here:
-
"Geographic Names: King Peak, Australia". geographic.org. Bethesda, Maryland, United States. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
Named for Clarence King, the first director of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1879-81
- I know there are too many blue links there: for your convenience. This 2015 claim by Norway could be considered under
WP:NOTNEWS, but I agree that if it's mentioned frequently in the Norwegian or international press then it would be imprudent to "suppress" it. Unfortunately my brief search for news outside of Norway doesn't turn up much.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see any of them as good entries on a dab for the phrase "King of Antarctica" ("King, Antarctica" would catch a couple but not all). If Clarence King were called "King of Antarctica" (cf
Lawrence of Arabia) it would make a good target/dab entry but I can't find any evidence he is/was.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:16, 16 February 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.
Understanding women
- 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)
18:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
Simply not the same concept.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The heading was requested in
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Sociology which I have seen on December 13th, 2014. Using my expertise in gender, I decided that what the requester wanted would be either
Sociology of Gender or
Feminism (since the request was posted on the Social Sciences - Sociology section of Requested Articles).
Sociology of Gender is simply not good enough for such a wide topic / title.
Feminism, on the other hand, provides a lot of useful information as well as links and references and is built around and by an active Wikipedia community. Hence the redirect. The redirect here suggests equivalence in content and substance, not sameness.
Mehmetaergun (
talk)
02:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, per nom, not the same. --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Misleading redirect. Women and feminists are neither equal nor "equivalent" subjects. ~
Ningauble (
talk)
20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or Weak Retarget to
Women's studies --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per comments above, and because I don't think it's possible for there to be a NPOV target for this. I think that
women's studies is a poor choice of target for the same reasons.
Ivanvector (
talk)
00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is an innacurrate target, and targeting a valid target that is not the title of a published work would essentially be a
WP:NOTGUIDE violation.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It's just too vague. As a published guide, "Understanding women" would be handy (I'd buy one), but without one it's not encyclopaedic. The phrase could also mean "compassionate women"
or, at a push, woman understudies or assistants, using "understand" in the archaic sense of being inferior or supporting. As well as lots of junk columns in the meeja, there is actually a book by this title that has good enough sales possibly to be notable (but not very):
-
- However what we'd need to make that into an article is RS reviews of it: I can't find any. Nor much on the publisher New Tradition Books: self-published?
Si Trew (
talk)
05:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There is also a guide in the
Haynes Manuals series ("Haynes Family Manuals"):
- These "Haynes Family Manuals" publications were perhaps launched slightly tongue-in-cheek (they are famed ih Britain for their car repair manuals, mostly bought by men) but with the serious intent of getting men interested in women's health etc., something usually restricted to women's magazines and perhaps considered taboo, so are not entirely frivolous. (That's just my opinion, of course.)
Si Trew (
talk)
05:50, 15 February 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.
Chemical and Biological Warfare
- 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
Warfare#Military operations marked by a specific characteristic. --
BDD (
talk)
18:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
We can't redirect to both
Chemical warfare AND
Biological warfare so should we:
- B: Delete entirely because we have no good target to link to,
- or some other option?
Mr. Guye (
talk)
00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is,
Weapon of mass destruction is better than nothing. --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
02:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Warfare#Military operations marked by a specific characteristic, which summarizes the topic and links to both.
Ivanvector (
talk)
20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per Ivanvector. the two are commonly discussed together so this is a plausible search term.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Warfare#Military operations marked by a specific characteristic per
Ivanvector --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I scanned
NBC suit,
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (R to
CBRN defense),
Biological and Chemical Defence Review Committee and
Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in the hope of finding something more specific, but can't.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:39, 15 February 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.
Pussy power
- 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)
18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
reply
The definition of Pussy power looking on Google seems to be more about a woman's dominance over a man post-sexual intercourse. Not at all feminism. Er. . .well it also just looks very shady.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
00:45, 11 February 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.