Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2016.

Reductively

[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) sst✈(conjugate) 06:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not defined at target, not going to help the reader understand. Maybe redirect to a witionary entry or just delete? Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the adverb form of "reductive." In fact, at the article for Reductionism, the caption for the picture says: "Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:30, 6 February 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.

Daojia

[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 retarget to Taoism. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huang-Lao isn't really equal to Daojia C933103 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on a number of edits in the history behind the redirect, people seem to disagree. Most of the arguments to merge were made by anon editors (and reverted by bots) but eventually an established editor stepped in and confirmed the redirect.
    I don't have the content knowledge to determine if that redirect was correct or not but if it wasn't, the proper fix is to revert to one of the pre-redirect versions. Deleting would lose that history. So keep but not necessarily as-is. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the surface these look like the same thing, the most prominent school of thought in second-century China, but I don't know why they would have different names. I don't think he's very active these days but pinging Simonm223, he knows this stuff. Keep for now, it may have important history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Huang-Lao" is an abbreviation for the thought of "The Yellow Emperor" and "Laozi", and has traditionally been a term for Daoism as it existed prior to its becoming a bona fide religion in the 1st millennium AD, though it may have been more of an independent school of its own. "Daojia" is one of the two main Mandarin terms for "Daoism". I don't think redirecting it to "Huang-Lao" is wise, just send it to Daoism.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Let me explain a bit about the relationship between those related terms here base on my own understanding plus content currently written on relevant pages in En&Zh wikipedia to help make a better decision:

  • First, a philosopher called Laozi come up with his own idea about nature of things and how the world should work and his idea become a school of thought.
  • There are many people who learn from Laozi, and as the time pass, some of them have different idea about how to understand what Laozi have said. For instance, Zhuangzi's thought and etc.
  • Then there is a school of thought known as Yellow Emperor (Huang). They produce their own literature and say they are words by the Yellow Emperor, an legendary emperor thousand year before their time. They mainly follow and promote Laozi's idea but also mixed some Fangxian (divination) and Yinyang content into it, and it become one of the most popular branch of Laozi's idea a few hundred years after Laozi's death. The school of thought is later known as Huang Lao after another several hundred years.
  • Into the Han Dynasty, Laozi's idea, Zhuangzi's idea, HuangLao, and others are then collective called as Taoism (School of thought), or Daojia in Chinese.
  • Meanwhile, Huang-Lao continue to develop, and some local religion absorbed its thought and brand themselves as Taoism (Religion). Ultimately there are few branches that survive till today and become the more widely known Taoism and also the apparent focus of the current Taoism page.

C933103 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's inconvenient that Chinese Wikipedia has chosen to separate zh:道家 (Taoist philosophy) and zh:道教 (Taoist religion, WD-linked to en:Taoism), but the English Wikipedia has chosen to write a combined article at Taoism and edit-warred to stop a fork (preserved in the article history of Daojia). Given this state of affairs I think the best course of action is to retarget to Taoism. Deryck C. 22:38, 13 February 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.

Be star

[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 retarget to Stellar_classification#Class_B. The clear consensus is that we should find the best available target and shouldn't delete. There's a bit of "I'll defer to the expert" here, and my reading of the arguments below, with reference to the actual content of the articles, is that Stellar_classification#Class_B is the best target. Deryck C. 11:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be stars are distinct from B(e) ones. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation isn't very satisfactory, but what arrangement do you think would be better? There is only one article for B stars with emission, and that article doesn't really explain very well the differences between them all. Maybe straightening out the article, possibly splitting it into two, would be the best thing to do first. Then any remaining redirects would become obvious. Lithopsian (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been suggestions to keep, retarget to Stellar classification#Class B, and to write a (set index) article, with not much consensus from any of the suggestions. Perhaps someone could write a draft of what that would look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 6 February 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.

Hook Mountain and Nyack Beach State Park

[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 speedily deleted by GB fan. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate but adjacent state parks; redirect exists from a time when Hook Mountain State Park did not have an article and so this redirected to Nyack Beach State Park. This was used only to link a designated natural landmark that spans the two parks; that list has since been modified to link to both pages now that both articles exist. This redirect is no longer used and can be confusing as an autofilled option in the search box. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:27, 6 February 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.

Alaskan rivers

[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) sst✈(conjugate) 07:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The singular forms of each of these ("Alaskan river" and so on) are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Alaskan river. I imagine the outcome(s) there will be reflected for those here. I don't mind if the listings are combined, but they're three days apart. In the meantime I've marked them all as {{R to list}}. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the singular and plural for nearly all 50 states and a few other places were created by Neelix all in a row. I felt the plurals were OK, if a little silly, but the singular implies a single river. In fact many rivers share names with places, and not necessarily the place they are located. Columbia River is not in Columbia. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is an obscure but notable other use of "Alaskan rivers", though it's technically "Rivers". The term was used during the 1950s to refer to Ralph Julian Rivers and his younger brother Victor Claudius Rivers, who grew up in rural Alaska and were involved together in a number of major political causes and efforts until the latter's death in 1959. There were times when "rivers" and "Rivers" were deliberately confused for dramatic effect, such as a speech which compared the two brothers to the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers in somewhat comedic fashion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlike the singular forms which imply one river, these imply multiple rivers. These redirects targeting a list of rivers is therefore perfectly reasonable. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Slightly weird relist here - I think there's incentive to put this entry and the "singular" entries below in the same place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 7 February 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.

Alaskan river

[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 all. After two weeks of discussion, there is now clear consensus to delete, because the singular form gives the impression of pointing towards one particular river rather than a collection of rivers. Deryck C. 22:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We did not like Frog of China or Borneo frog etc because they imply there is an official frog or only one frog Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_17#Uruguay_frog These Neelix redirects seem similar to me. There are dozens, I'm presenting a few as an example. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, Canadian river (→ Canadian River) is not a river in Canada (it's in New Mexico). None of the rivers at the DAB at French river (→ French River) is in France. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes a good case for testing the waters: see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Canadian_river. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:56, 6 February 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.

Iphone 7

[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. 22:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned ta the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:56, 6 February 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 of black ice hockey players

[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 List of Black Hockey Players and retarget the other four to Black players in ice hockey. We don't have a great consensus but after all this time I don't see any benefits in a further relist so some decisions need to be made. What we do have a clear consensus about is that the present targets are inappropriate. Deletion of List of Black Hockey Players is clearly correct based on Deryck Chan's argument. I am not convinced by "it only mentions select players" as a reason not to retarget. We have redirects as a way of helping the reader find information on what they are seeking and this retarget takes the reader to a helpful page; the fact that it is not fully comprehensive is secondary to its usefulness. I don't conceive that anyone is going to seek information on "hockey players who play on black ice" so I don't see the first two as being confusing. Finally, the remaining four are potentially useful, not in my view really harmful and have been around for a long time so WP:RFD#HARMFUL is relevant. Just Chilling (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the NHL is certainly the world's premier hockey league, it's not the only one to have had black players. There's another page, Black players in ice hockey, but it only mentions select players. I suggest deleting these unless we actually have such a list somewhere. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:53, 6 February 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.

Talk:Vine Deloria, Jr

[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 redirect fixed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect goes from a talk page to an article. It was requested for G7 speedy deletion by the creator but then Opabinia regalis contested that speedy deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't intend to "contest" it, I just didn't notice it went to the article instead of the talk page. I don't get this, though. Why not just... fix it so it goes to the talk page? Am I missing something? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it is too unimportant to spend time thinking about. I made a mistake (I wanted to redirect Vine Deloria, Jr instead of Talk:Vine Deloria, Jr). Deleting the redirect (which will never be used), or redirecting it to the talkpage or ignoring it completely all has the same result. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:35, 6 February 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.

Corlo terrorita

[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a corruption of the lyric "con los terroristas," but doesn't seem like a plausible search term to me. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 6 February 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.

Irish Messi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 15#Irish Messi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_6&oldid=1037903111"