Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 14

October 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2014.

Egonovism

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) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this made-up word which somebody came up with one day, and which never caught on or made it into use outside its Creator's little world. There is not a single reputably published book I can find containing this word, and nothing at all connecting it with the limited and fringy concept which it now directs to. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:24, 15 October 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.

民主進歩党

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#民主進歩党

Dunkman

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 disambiguate. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this can refer to several players, the other most notable being Shaquille O'Neal. Hoops gza (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Uninitiated !vote) Disambiguate then if it notably refers to multiple people, as Hoops says. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Yes, this is a classic case where disambiguation is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is apparently not a common enough nickname for either James or O'Neal to be mentioned in their articles, and the latter has a bunch of nicknames listed ("The Big Aristotle and Hobo Master"? "The Big Galactus"?). The usage appears too trivial, at least for these two, and thus an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 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) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget If I were to input "Dunkman" into the search box, I'd expect to be taken to the Slam Dunk Contest page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Hoops & Hisashiyarouin. Google brings up results for Nike LeBron "Dunkman" sneakers, and also Shaq "Dunkman" hoodies. Merchandising suggests they're a likely enough search term, but neither is likely to be a primary topic. UrbanDB also defines this as "a tool used to inseminate heifers" - if accurate, that might be worth disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above. It seems that this moniker isn't something that is simply earned by basketball players. The existence of products made exclusively for this moniker might make a stronger case for a dab. --Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 12 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.

DOS 30

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 Virtual DOS machine#NTDOS, given there is (now) some information there Nabla (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean? huh, a Google search does not find anything relating this term to WinNT - TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There certainly is a bit of history that might interest Windows enthusiasts, but certainly not enough to warrant a redirect. There is the lack of info and negligible visit stats. (134 in 90 days is not even enough to account for bots and spiders that I know of.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Visit stats are irrelevant. What's relevant is if it can be a search term, and since "DOS 30" is a historical fact, it is also a valid term for a redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, yes, basically, you describe everything that disagrees with you as irrelevant. If you are replying to persuade me to change my opinion, I am afraid I am not convinced: It still does not lead to any info. I have said "Delete" to things that had galactic view stats per day before and some times, they are deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to DOS 3 as a {{R from typo}} for DOS 3.0 -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this isn't a typo for "DOS 3.0". DOS 30 is the DOS version reported by Windows NT originally. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that the present target is the best, or whether DOS 3.0 would be better, but in May, June and July this redirect had 36, 64 and 44 views respectively which is an order of magnitude more than can be expected from just bots and spiders alone (low single digits per month). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not really. You see, the daily visit of July stats are small (one or two) and suggest daily spider traversal. On four occasions, there has been more visits, which may suggest human activity. August have been particularly calm, with the exception of the end of the month, which I attribute to the start of this discussion. June is a little bit more busy but the average visits have been 2.13 per day. For stats to have actual impact on a deletion discussion, they must be four digits, which is not much, given that 1000 ÷ 30 = 33.3, indicating actual human interest.
      Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where on earth do you get the ridiculous notion that viewing figures need to be four digits to indicate human activity!? We can't be certain which views are human and which are not, but years of experience at looking at the viewing figures of redirects means I have seen countless graphs that show 3-4 uses per month (sometimes even less) which would not be possible if spiders looked at articles daily. The vast majority of spiders feed search engines, those that are programmed well will fetch more often from pages that are changing significantly and those that are frequently being visited from their parent search engine - both activities also push up the viewing stats by humans much more significantly. Redirect pages do not change and so the bots don't need to visit it very frequently at all. Those bots that do not follow that programming strategy end up returning so much useless data they don't last long. Your assertion also raises the question of why you think a redirect needs to be useful for 30 people every day in order to be useful? If a redirect gets 1 person per month to the content they are looking for then it has added significant value to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe backlinks to this redirect may have something to do with it: based on anecdotal observations, I surmise there are more bot visits for pages which have more backlinks. — Keφr 11:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi. Please correct me if I am wrong but I see several fallacies in your arguments:
        1. "...viewing figures need to be four digits to indicate human activity!?" Since I didn't say such a thing, this whole question is at fault. What I said was four-digit stats may impact a deletion discussion and 33.3 views per days or 1000 per month does indicate human activity. Apparently, you do agree with this one.
        2. Bots and spiders are not the same things. Bots are Wikipedia objects only. They can visit a page only when it is changed. Spiders need to visit a page first to determine whether it is changed.
        3. Why are you arguing only on the bot and spider aspect as if it is a dealbreaker? For the sake of argument, safely assume that all of these stats are entirely human. Given the nature of DOS 30, I still don't think keeping it is plausible. But, Thryduulf, do you know what DOS 30 is?
        Best regards,
        Codename Lisa (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Indeed four-digit stats may impact a deletion discussion, but the implication of your argument was that 1, 2 and 3-digit stats do not - this is incorrect. Human activity can be indicated by as little as 5-6 views per month.
          2. However they work, the hard evidence is that redirects that do not change and are not visited by lots of humans get 0 or low single digit views per month. If they were being visited by spiders regularly they would get much more than that.
          3. My argument is based on the fact that the viewings stats for this redirect very strongly indicate that it is being used by humans (10s of hits per month would also very strongly indicate this). Redirects that are used by humans should not be changed or deleted without good reason, because it harms the encyclopaedia when readers cannot find the content they are looking for. Indeed the very high viewing figures for this redirect suggests that is likely linked from somewhere, and as you can see from the whatlinkshere it is linked on DOS 20, DOS 0 and List of DOS operating systems.
          4. There is no such thing as "DOS 30", therefore people using this redirect must be looking for something else, and the most plausible thing is DOS 3.0 (which in spoken contexts will often be referred to as "DOS three zero"), which is why we redirect it to that content. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, this isn't a typo for "DOS 3.0". DOS 30 is the DOS version reported by Windows NT originally. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to Virtual DOS machine#NTDOS. Just like OS/2 version 1.x reported a DOS version of 10.x0 and OS/2 version 2.x reported a DOS version of 20.x, Windows NT originally reported a DOS version of 30 (INT 21h/AH=30h). It was later changed to 5.00, then 5.50. People familiar with the history of the operating system should know these facts. For some time, compatible DOS programs were designed to cope with these unusually high DOS versions in order to invoke special support for OS/2 and NT features (or lack thereof). Therefore, "DOS 30" is a valid and fully sourceable term people might find in publications around the time when Windows NT was released and consequently might use as input into the search box or refer to it in other articles about DOS versions. Although redirects don't require this, I can, of course, provide references if necessary. One of the purposes of redirects is to redirect a search term to the corresponding article, which is "Windows NT". Of course, the term is rarely used today, but this does not change its historical validity and therefore necessity to include it in a reference project like this. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a life style magazine only discussing current stuff. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the NTVDM/NTDOS section in the Virtual DOS machine article somewhat (fully referenced) so that it also discusses the DOS 30.00 issue now. Therefore I propose to retarget the redirect there. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:04, 8 September 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, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since this might not be obvious to new readers, I changed my original proposal above from Keep (letting it point to Windows NT) to Retarget to Virtual DOS machine#NTDOS after I added some information (including WP:RS) about "DOS 30" there. I think this would be a good if not the best target for the redirect. Further, I continue to assume that actual subjects take precedence over potential typos in an encyclopedia (which would rule out a retarget to "DOS 3.0" as plausible typo). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:18, 14 October 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.

Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"

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. There is no appropriate target for this redirect since Wikipedia has no coverage of the speech. In the future, a place to write something might be in Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America" → Ronald Reagan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely search term and a lot of typing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirects are not just for search terms. This was an article, and text may have been re-used. Moreover Cool URIs Don't Change. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
    17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough, who also didn't remind you that typing the exact page name is far from the only way to get to a page - it is the top search result for "A Vision for America" for example. That said, if the target can be refined to the relevant section of the article that would be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This speech isn't mentioned at all at the target article. (Thryduulf, does that change your opinion?) It's also not mentioned at Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980, which might be the more logical place to discuss the speech. So on one hand, any readers using this term will be mislead and disappointed. On the other hand, it's a pretty unlikely search term. But two wrongs don't make a right. Is Wikipedia better off than it was four years ago, when this didn't exist? Well, yes, but not because of this. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 29 August 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) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing on the target page related to this redirect. No 'eve speech'. Specially no ' Vision for America', so we are doing a disservice to our readers directing them there, they are better off searching elsewhere. Sure the target mentions 'Ronald Reagan', but one looking for that, surely will find it without the need for this redirect. - Nabla (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. --Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 12 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.

Array Technologies Incorporated Technologies Incorporated

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) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible reduplication � (talk) 12:28, 14 October 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.

Jin Sanpang

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). There is evidence that the redirect is a plausible search term for a large number of English speakers, and no other arguments in favour of deletion have been presented. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is a derogatory Chinese name, but its an unlikely search term on the English Wikipedia, and most English speakers would not know this name. - TheChampionMan1234 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Unlikely" is not the same as "incorrect", "implausible" or "unused" and this redirect is none of those three. The monthly stats are very variable, ranging from 2 to 15 hits in the months I checked (April-September) but there is a rough correlation between low and high hit-count months for Kim Jong-un, suggesting this is human activity. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely search term in the aggregate. There are probably ten million English speakers who're likely to be familiar with the name (far more than most articles), and there's no cause to treat them in a bigotted fashion merely because of their first language. WilyD 10:44, 22 October 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_October_14&oldid=1138579842"