Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 19

December 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2014.

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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ἀναιμία

  • Ἀναιμία → Anemia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  • An-haîma → Anemia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  • An-haima → Anemia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  • An haîma → Anemia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  • An haima → Anemia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Anemia is not a Greek or transliterated Ancient Greek topic. Gorobay (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #8. "Redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". I don't wish to put words in others' mouths, but some argue (correctly) that creation and deletion are different things: and these were all created over six years ago (on 11 June 2008 by User:Neelix) and have presumably been considered harmless since. But consensus can change and I believe it has, now to ignore the "should not be created" wording. #8 is the only criterion at WP:RFD#DELETE to say anything like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Criterion #8 is not relevant to this case, because Greek is directly relevant to the etymology of the word "anemia". It traces its origins to the Ancient Greek words above, which mean "without blood" or "lack of blood". See the last sentence of the article's lead. Neelix (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology doesn't make the subject Greek. The map is not the territory: the word "anaemia" is related to Greek by way of New Latin but it was only coined around 1800–10 (according to dictionary.com), so it can't be related to Ancient Greece, Ancient Greek or Ancient Greeks. Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology is an important subject discussed in the article. The implied definition of relatedness in your statement seems overly circumscribed; the map is not the territory, but surely the map is related to the territory. Neelix (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology is not discussed in the article. Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The base case: Etymology does not include an etymology, which I got from Wiktionary: but Old French ethimologie, Latin etymologia Ancient Greek ἐτυμολογία (etumología) are all redlinks. We're not a dictionary, therefore we're not an etymological dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Modern Greek is at el:Αναιμία but we don't have Αναιμία or αναιμία, either. Si Trew (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology is discussed in the article. See the last sentence of the lead. That the redirects you mention do not exist does not demonstrate that they should not exist. Creating them does not turn Wikipedia into a dictionary; it turns Wikipedia into a more functional encyclopedia. Neelix (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept of anemia isn't specific to any language or culture. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The concept does not need to be specific to the Greek language; it is sufficient that the English word traces its etymology to the Greek word. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Alternate names in other languages generally aren't warranted, because it's out of place and unencyclopedic to mention other languages' versions of the same term in most cases; in this case, an etymology section wouldn't be warranted, because the anemia article focuses on the concept of anemia, to which the etymology is irrelevant. Local names of course are relevant (imagine not mentioning "Москва", the local name, in Moscow), so we include them and have them as redirects, but since we shouldn't be worrying about etymology in the anemia article, just as we wouldn't worry about the Guaraní name for Moscow, we shouldn't have the etymology of anemia as a basis for redirects to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (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.

Printer font

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. --BDD (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not explain the concept of device-dependent fonts � (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Computer font does a marginally better job, but only in passing so I'm not certain it's worth retargetting. It's a topic we should cover somewhere, so if we don't yet it might be best as a redlink? Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am with Thryduulf's argument, but go farther to say delete. There are plenty of devices other than printers (displays, particularly) that have device-dependent fonts (e.g. VGA-compatible_text_mode#Fonts). Computer font#Bitmap font is possible, but printer fonts may be bitmap or vector fonts.
As far as I understand it, if one selects a printer font for a device, it is the printing device that does the font rendering ( → font rasterization)from character information, rather than the computer sending the page description as a raster or set of curves. (Cheaper printers tend to do this in the computer's printer driver software rather than have expensive processors on the printer itself.)
There seems no good target, so deletion is best, to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment printers have existed before the invention of electronic computers, and some types of computer printers (ie. Daisy Wheel Printers) have fixed fonts/typefaces -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2014 (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.

Golf 2

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 turn into disambiguation page for the same reasons as Golf 3. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See yesterday's discussion at 2014 October 22#Golf_3. Perhaps combine the two, as they have the same issue. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here's a link to the Wikipedia search of the term "Golf 2"; the issue, as stated in the other discussion, is that this term is possibly too ambiguous to be useful and/or all existing articles which this term could refer are partial title matches. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my first thought about this redirect, was the submarine class, Golf II (documented in Golf-class submarine) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Golf II also redirects there, but not as {{R to section}}.
The sub's other variants Golf I, Golf III, Golf IV, Golf V and Golf SSQ are all redlinks.
Incidentally, I've just gone through the Rs at Volkswagen Golf I, Volkswagen Golf II etc. and retargeted some from the general Volkswagen Golf to the specific Mk (Volkswagen Golf Mk1 etc). I can't see that doing so affects this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The video games are partial-title matches and wouldn't logically be referred to simply as "Golf 2". Add the submarines to the hatnote at the target article if necessary. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Golf (disambiguation). As a search term, this is far too ambiguous to determine a primary target. It's a lazy search; let readers do some clicking to find what they're looking for. Ivanvector (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (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.

Strike(unit)

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) 17:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely redirect or search term, superseded by Strike (unit) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per criterion R3. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - {{R from move}}, {{R from typo}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. R3 excludes redirects created from pagemoves. The page history alone shows that this is a plausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2014 (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.

Choom Gang

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 Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#Return_to_Hawaii. The mention of the group from the main Obama article has been added there as well. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't follow US politics closely, you may not recall that the "Choom Gang" was the name for a group of friends including a young Barack Obama who liked to smoke marijuana together. Since the target article only mentions marijuana once, and the gang not at all, this redirect wouldn't enlighten you if you didn't already know. Since it's unhelpful and misleading to readers, I recommend we delete it. BDD (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add in stuff about the Choom Gang. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the group of friends is mentioned by name in Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career. It seems sensible to simply copy the sentence there to Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#Return_to_Hawaii, and if the Choom Gang redirect is kept, it would be prudent to anchor that to the subheading as an {{R to section}}, as the high school group of friends is not equivalent to the entirety of Obama's early life and career.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2014 (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.

Xor-yost

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) 17:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

661 hits for this on all the internets put together (thus, unlikely search term), and the term doesn't even occur on the target page. Redirect was restored in 2010 for reasons unknown to me. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this may qualify as WP:CSD#G5 (see WP:LTA/Grawp). It was originally deleted under R1 but that is now deprecated criteria. It was restored by an admin active in the Dungeons & Dragons project, most likely innocently. However, it's an unlikely search term, not mentioned at the target, as Drmies said. Ivanvector (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_19&oldid=1050184384"