Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2016.

Undesirable[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unnecessary, a topic for wiktionary, not wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a Neelix redirect. An IP retargeted this to desirability, which has now been deleted. I've retargeted it back to desire. -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Better to just let people search around the various uses of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

IFA Arabic[edit]

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) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "IFA" refers to in this situation as the target makes no mention of it and IFA is a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This may have some reference to an obscure bit of religious history (discussed here). Yet that's merely a guess. I'd rather we just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arabische Hochsprache[edit]

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) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Arabic has no affinity with the German language. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per Tavix. These were both created in 2009, but redirected from Arabic language by a bot (AvisBot) as double redirect. Hits are well below bot noise level and no internal links for either. In German Wikipedia, de:Arabische Sprache is the article IW'd to en:Arabic; de:Arabische Hochsprache is a redrect thereto. So tha's all nice and tidy in German, and so there is no need of these at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - The fundamental question of "Is this helpful?" that we have for redirects has a clear "Nope." answer here. These aren't worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CAMELCASE[edit]

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 as is. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. Fairly recent creation, not quite a year old. A very small portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, addresses CamelCase, while Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia is entirely about it. MOS:CAMELCASE would still redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I appreciate the argument, but the fact that your proposed target is both and about (pretty old) historical practices makes me disinclined to co-opt an existing redirect for it. I also think it's generally desirable to have equivalent MOS: and WP: redirects point to the same place when practical. Maybe worth a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only pages which this is linked to clearly intend the present target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Champion: I'm not too concerned about three links. I currently see six in total, half of which are related to this nomination. As this is such an obscure synonym for the current target (MOS:TM making much more sense), I doubt it has been used extensively in edit summaries.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: You may already know this, but the incoming links tool doesn't count the links that are present in edit histories and deletion logs. So, it would be very difficult to list a numeric amount of those. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:ChickenLittle[edit]

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 Deleted by admin User:Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed this redirect, i have no idea that is chicken little? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rest of the world[edit]

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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. In an engineering or computing sense, a "Rest of the world" simulation means that essentially it is black box testing, that one simulates the "rest of the world" to see how one's own software behaves. I think this is rather WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the result of a requested move. SSTflyer 12:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, although I'm not a big fan of the status quo. From reading the RM discussion, it seemed like there was going to be a disambiguation page at this title, but I guess that never happened? I'm not so sure it's ambiguous on Wikipedia, but I'd welcome one if someone can come up with other articles. If not, I'd prefer for the redirect be reversed (so that Rest of the world in sports and games is reverted to its long-standing title of simply "Rest of the world"). -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of politicians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 27#List of politicians

Scomparto[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Italian. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked over at the Italian Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable by this name there either. Interestingly, it appears that the exact word 'scomparto' doesn't even have a page at all, even as a redirect to their article on magazines. At any rate, I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Penguin Hugger[edit]

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. 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned at target, and most usage of this term refer to obscure non notable topics anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Actually this made me smile and I would love to keep it and I shall use it in my real life as a software engineer from now on.... but this is not referenced and not mentioned at the target, so Champion is quite right, from a WP point of view, it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC slang. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just a little bit of slang, nothing that important, although I did chuckle. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Combat Service Support[edit]

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 Combat Service Support (military organization) over the redirect. Thanks to CoffeeWithMarkets and AustralianRupert for doing the legwork! -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Service Support is NOT an exclusive American type of sport. At least in Canada (33 Service Battalion) and the United Kingdom (Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Dental Corps, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps there are combat support units. The Banner talk 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm adding a hatnote to help things. You can discuss whether to redirect over topic? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation page perhaps? Or else a list to tell you what combat support units there are? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess every option will be better than this incorrect redirect. The Banner talk 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that this is the sort of thing that deserves a conceptual article (discussing how supply structures work to provide medical resources and the like to combatants, behind the scenes) rather than just a list of particular examples. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with The Banner that this is not US specific. I came here from a UK oriented defence blog where someone was talking about Combat Support and Combat Service Support and I wanted to refresh in my mind what sort of units went into which category. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been thinking of this one for a while but had no better suggestion to make. User:The Banner said "combat support units". That gives me a clue, because we don't have combat support unit. If we haven't that, I don't think we should say this. But it is probably worth pinging WP:MILHIST and asking their opinion, I'll leave a message on their talk page referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, I got a bit distracted about flying tanks, but hadn't Centre of inertia, we now do, we did have Center of inertia. Both go to Center of mass. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Combat service support as a concept exists across the NATO and ABCA spectrum, not just as a US Army construct. It essentially relates to logistical and medical support for combat elements. For instance, the Australian Army has several combat service support battalions: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th ,11th, 13th etc. [1] These units provide second line logistical support (ordnance, supply, transport, maintenance, etc) to combat units, specifically at brigade level). Note that within the Australian Army, medical support now exists outside of the CSSB construct, and is essentially a CSS element controlled at divisional or command level, which is pushed down to brigade level on the basis of need. Additionally, the concept of combat service support differs from combat support. For instance, combat support units might provide offensive fire support (e.g. artillery or attack aviation), or counter mobility or mobility support (e.g. combat engineers) direct to combat units (infantry or armour), whereas combat service support units provide logistical (e.g. transport, maintenance or catering units) or medical support to combat units etc. As intimated earlier, CSS can be provided at various levels also: first line (integral to a combat unit), second line (at a combat brigade level), or third level (divisional or higher). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert:, given your knowledge would you care to write a short article/stub on this topic then? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've added a little bit to Combat Service Support (military organization). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure if the proper concept article should be at 'combat service support' or 'Combat Service Support'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Boris (British politician)[edit]

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. 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term, it's also misleading as it implies Boris Johnson is known mononymously, which isn't the case as far as I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Boris is definitely known mononymously in London and in the press, Private Eye always just calls him "Boris" and Ian Hislop will do so on Have I Got News For You, to a British English audience "Boris" on its own pretty much always means Boris Johnson. However, it's still rather a weird and unnecessary disambiguation. There are probably other British politicians called Boris, although I can't seem to find any. (I found this about ex-apc councillor Hon. Boris Neenwi, but that is neither notable nor British). We don't have Maggie (British politician) even though for a decade or three Margaret Thatcher was generally referred to coloquially just as "Maggie" (or Milk Snatcher for a while). We don't have Boris (Russian politician). We just don't disambiguate this way. Both are at the DAB at Boris. Just not needed. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Boris is often referred to mononymously. Unless there's another prominent British mayor politician (EDITED 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)) named Boris, there's no problem with this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Someone wanting to find "[[[:Mayor Boris]]" or whatever is going to search for "Boris (British politician)"? I think you are conflating "mayor" with "British politician" here.; perhaps you put your "mayor" rationale in the wrong nomination. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Under its original title of Boris (politician) it made a certain sense, as he is regularly referred to solely by his first name and it's conceivable that someone seeing a "Boris to meet with insert local dignitary" headline might want to see who 'Boris' is (although I very much doubt anyone in Europe over the age of five could fail to be aware of who he is). However, nobody is ever going to search on "Boris (British politician)", and if they really need to I'm sure they can Google the name. ‑ Iridescent 09:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While he is indeed known as just "Boris" in a lot of publications as well as among regular people, I still don't see this as particularly helpful. If people just searched his name as well as a bit of related words, they'd go right to his related page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Biys[edit]

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, default to keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure0. The article always uses "Biy" as plural, so to make it "Biys" would be over-egging the pudding, I think, but I am not an expert on Kazakh language.. Si Trew (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All I could find were misspellings of "boys" and people's usernames on various social media. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oops, I thought it was Blys. Plural is okay here. [2] I don't understand the more recent slang usage though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word "Biys" is used in the article, so this is fine. Even if the article is wrong, it still shows usage, which is really all that is needed for a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if "Biys" is not a proper form of the word, it would be a reasonable {{R from incorrect name}}, especially as the article makes the potential mistake.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Z181[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (neelix redirect) I don't know why but this was up for Categories for Deletion. I still can't fathom that yet, but it's a neelix redirect, it really was never a category, I don't know why it would have been t thus tagged. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed, this doesn't seem a necessary redirect. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The greater question is whether Wikipedia should have redirects for NORAD ID and ADC IDs. WP:NOTDIRECTORY These aren't that useful but could be considered if they have some notability by those code names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Z-181[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects). Only in the infobox, not in article elsewhise. Nobody seems to be clearing per WP:X1, that didn't work too well as intended because at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4 there are 145 by User:Tazerdadog and 95 by me. So patently simply to list them at the Anomie list and expect them to be cleared, rather than clutter up RfD with them all, is not working. Perhaps the admins got bored. I certainly do. These aren't on the backlog there for X1, but Delete all.Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: agreed, these redirects seem unlikely and unnecessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete do we need redirects for every ADC ID and NORAD ID? They aren't common codes as with airport codes, or notable areas as with Area 51? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_15&oldid=1088108644"