This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2015.
2017 CAF Confederation Cup
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 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 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 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.
Into the West (2015 film)
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 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.
CSKA London
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 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.
Physible
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.
Soft redirect to
wikt:physible pending the creation of an article or keepas a second choice because the status quo actually describes the term. Oppose disambiguation because no other entries besides the current one would pass
WP:DABMENTION. --
Tavix(
talk)16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Now that I think about it a little more, I think I prefer keeping over soft redirecting. It's better to keep people at Wikipedia if we can and the current target explains the term. --
Tavix(
talk)17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The term doesn't have anything to do with TPB directly, other than them being the originator of it. A printable 3D model that I've downloaded from anywhere else or that I've created wholly myself could also be called "a physible", without TPB being involved.
Don Cuan (
talk)
03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
From
WP:NOUN: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"...
""Physible", if it meant anything, and the context in the article makes it clear, would be an adjective, thus "a physible" would be like saying "a black" or "an automated" or "an inflatable". While of course we often do so in English, we do so with an unwritten noun (a black person or ball, an inflatable boat or toy) which often can only be distinguished by context and stand meaningless as titles in themselves.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's not a misspelling of anything, it's a neologism (with
WP:NEO being the strongest argument against it) derived from "physical" and "able". It's intended to mean that a file containing a 3D model is able to be turned into a physical object through 3D printing and comparable methods. Its use as a noun can indeed be compared to "an inflatable" and both are perfectly acceptable grammatically. In fact, this one seems to be used primarily as a noun.
Don Cuan (
talk)
03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. If it's a neologism from the Pirate Bay about 3D printing, this will explain all of that adequately. --
BDD (
talk)
14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix and BDD. Coined by TPB and not obviously in use by anyone else at this point; a
WP:NEOLOGISM for sure, but neologisms can be valid redirects. If it were to be discussed in greater detail, the discussion would likely be somewhere more generic like
3D printing or
3D modelling but it isn't currently, and we're not redirecting for the Wikipedia of the future. It's also entirely possible that this will become a notable topic for its own article (though it would likely be "physibles" or whatever the generic term ends up being).
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk)
14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I am not happy with neologisms coined by private firms, but just because I am not happy does not mean they don't exist. If it is in use, it should stay, but there are thousands of words coined by marketing men
wowcher for example that are not encylopaedic, and this is not encyclopaedic as the target does not mention this specific term (only in the plural).
Si Trew (
talk)
00:33, 3 September 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2015.
2017 CAF Confederation Cup
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 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 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 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.
Into the West (2015 film)
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 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.
CSKA London
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 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.
Physible
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.
Soft redirect to
wikt:physible pending the creation of an article or keepas a second choice because the status quo actually describes the term. Oppose disambiguation because no other entries besides the current one would pass
WP:DABMENTION. --
Tavix(
talk)16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Now that I think about it a little more, I think I prefer keeping over soft redirecting. It's better to keep people at Wikipedia if we can and the current target explains the term. --
Tavix(
talk)17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The term doesn't have anything to do with TPB directly, other than them being the originator of it. A printable 3D model that I've downloaded from anywhere else or that I've created wholly myself could also be called "a physible", without TPB being involved.
Don Cuan (
talk)
03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
From
WP:NOUN: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"...
""Physible", if it meant anything, and the context in the article makes it clear, would be an adjective, thus "a physible" would be like saying "a black" or "an automated" or "an inflatable". While of course we often do so in English, we do so with an unwritten noun (a black person or ball, an inflatable boat or toy) which often can only be distinguished by context and stand meaningless as titles in themselves.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's not a misspelling of anything, it's a neologism (with
WP:NEO being the strongest argument against it) derived from "physical" and "able". It's intended to mean that a file containing a 3D model is able to be turned into a physical object through 3D printing and comparable methods. Its use as a noun can indeed be compared to "an inflatable" and both are perfectly acceptable grammatically. In fact, this one seems to be used primarily as a noun.
Don Cuan (
talk)
03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. If it's a neologism from the Pirate Bay about 3D printing, this will explain all of that adequately. --
BDD (
talk)
14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix and BDD. Coined by TPB and not obviously in use by anyone else at this point; a
WP:NEOLOGISM for sure, but neologisms can be valid redirects. If it were to be discussed in greater detail, the discussion would likely be somewhere more generic like
3D printing or
3D modelling but it isn't currently, and we're not redirecting for the Wikipedia of the future. It's also entirely possible that this will become a notable topic for its own article (though it would likely be "physibles" or whatever the generic term ends up being).
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk)
14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I am not happy with neologisms coined by private firms, but just because I am not happy does not mean they don't exist. If it is in use, it should stay, but there are thousands of words coined by marketing men
wowcher for example that are not encylopaedic, and this is not encyclopaedic as the target does not mention this specific term (only in the plural).
Si Trew (
talk)
00:33, 3 September 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.