Misplaced Pages

:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 27: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:11, 29 April 2023 editZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,854 edits →Misplaced Pages:PUFFERY: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 11:10, 29 April 2023 edit undoC. A. Russell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,136 edits →FILE pointer: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
* '''Keep'''. Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests. ] is the article that readers land when passing through the ] redirect, so ] should lead them there, too. The suggestion to retarget to ] is so strange that I wonder how it even seemed like a good idea. This new refrain "not mentioned in the target article" that I've seen pop up several times in the last month or two is so obnoxious and has undergirded so many poorly reasoned deletion requests that I guess we're going to need to put a new guideline in Misplaced Pages namespace telling people to knock it off with starting RFDs on this basis. In this instance, it's hardly even true; stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"). This request could have ''only'' arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;(<small>]</small>) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests. ] is the article that readers land when passing through the ] redirect, so ] should lead them there, too. The suggestion to retarget to ] is so strange that I wonder how it even seemed like a good idea. This new refrain "not mentioned in the target article" that I've seen pop up several times in the last month or two is so obnoxious and has undergirded so many poorly reasoned deletion requests that I guess we're going to need to put a new guideline in Misplaced Pages namespace telling people to knock it off with starting RFDs on this basis. In this instance, it's hardly even true; stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"). This request could have ''only'' arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;(<small>]</small>) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
*:], and ] as I am not a bot. That, and it shouldn't take someone having to write like a paragraph of information ''not in the article'' to validate why a redirect exists. The target article should make it clear to those not familiar with the subject material why they were redirected to the article in the first place. Redirects are meant to help our readers, not throw them into obscurity trying to figure out where in the heck the information they are looking for is in the article. In addition, as another editor and I have pointed out, the redirect could be considered ambiguous due to having multiple potential existing article targets. (Oh and one last thing: "{{Tq|Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests.}}" You know, you chose to participate ... you didn't have to.) Thanks. ] (]) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) *:], and ] as I am not a bot. That, and it shouldn't take someone having to write like a paragraph of information ''not in the article'' to validate why a redirect exists. The target article should make it clear to those not familiar with the subject material why they were redirected to the article in the first place. Redirects are meant to help our readers, not throw them into obscurity trying to figure out where in the heck the information they are looking for is in the article. In addition, as another editor and I have pointed out, the redirect could be considered ambiguous due to having multiple potential existing article targets. (Oh and one last thing: "{{Tq|Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests.}}" You know, you chose to participate ... you didn't have to.) Thanks. ] (]) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
*::* It is not a personal attack to say that a naively implemented bot could have created this RFD.
*::** In that vein, please do not (perversely) cite the ] page while simultaneously implying that I am operating in bad faith.
*::* You have, for reasons unknown, repeated for the second time that the subject is not in the article. '''This is not true; it is in the article, as has already been stated.'''
*::** It's not true now, and it wasn't true at the time that the RFD was made.
*::* Observing that that someone has written a thorough response to a bad RFD and implying that their doing so is an argument that the RFD makes sense, in a word, baffling. This is "throw the witch in the water to see if she floats"-level reasoning (only it's worse than that, even; it's "let's say we'll throw the witch in the water to see if anyone comes around to say that we shouldn't or tries to stop us").
*::* Proposing that the redirect be ''deleted'' is certain to be ''more'' harmful to readers and cannot be squared with a subsequent contradictory plea not to "throw them into obscurity"; should the redirect disappear, that will be a strictly ''worse'' outcome in the event that they come across the subject, so opening an RFD on that basis defies logic.
*::* To approach another dead horse (because you insist on it): both ] and ] are generic concepts, whereas the subject of this redirect, "FILE pointer", is both common parlance and specific to the C ecosystem, and redirecting *away* from a more specific article where the subject is actually covered to a generic one where it is not is a bad idea.
*::** If you are going to make a show of trying to appear to respond to the argument against your RFD, please ''actually'' respond to the argument that is being made, rather than just restating or referring back to the original bad suggestion without further elaboration. It was bad then and it's still bad now. Try, you know, ''elaborating'' if there is an actual basis for the suggestion that will hold up under scrutiny.
*::** As before, opening an RFD on the ostensible basis that the subject does not appear in the target article while suggesting that the redirect point to some other article (NB: where actually ''is'' true that the subject does not appear), again defies logic.
*::* You ''are'' wasting contributor time—by prompting responses to RFDs with untrue premises and obstinately restating them even after having had it pointed out that they're untrue. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;(<small>]</small>) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


====Misplaced Pages:PUFFERY==== ====Misplaced Pages:PUFFERY====

Revision as of 11:10, 29 April 2023

< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2023.

FILE pointer

Not sure if it makes more sense for this to target its current target, be retargeted to Pointer (computer programming), or be deleted. Either way, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. I mean, FILE pointers in C usually represent input/output, but that's not specified or explained anywhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete. The term "file pointer" is generic and describes related concepts in a number of different languages and OS APIs. FILE in all caps makes it more likely to refer specifically to C or C++ but it still could be ambiguous and the term doesn't appear in the article itself (where it's called a handle instead of a pointer), I lean towards getting rid of it. Dylnuge 01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests. C file input/output is the article that readers land when passing through the fopen redirect, so FILE pointer should lead them there, too. The suggestion to retarget to Pointer (computer programming) is so strange that I wonder how it even seemed like a good idea. This new refrain "not mentioned in the target article" that I've seen pop up several times in the last month or two is so obnoxious and has undergirded so many poorly reasoned deletion requests that I guess we're going to need to put a new guideline in Misplaced Pages namespace telling people to knock it off with starting RFDs on this basis. In this instance, it's hardly even true; stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"). This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith, and please avoid personal attacks as I am not a bot. That, and it shouldn't take someone having to write like a paragraph of information not in the article to validate why a redirect exists. The target article should make it clear to those not familiar with the subject material why they were redirected to the article in the first place. Redirects are meant to help our readers, not throw them into obscurity trying to figure out where in the heck the information they are looking for is in the article. In addition, as another editor and I have pointed out, the redirect could be considered ambiguous due to having multiple potential existing article targets. (Oh and one last thing: "Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests." You know, you chose to participate ... you didn't have to.) Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    • It is not a personal attack to say that a naively implemented bot could have created this RFD.
      • In that vein, please do not (perversely) cite the Misplaced Pages:AGF page while simultaneously implying that I am operating in bad faith.
    • You have, for reasons unknown, repeated for the second time that the subject is not in the article. This is not true; it is in the article, as has already been stated.
      • It's not true now, and it wasn't true at the time that the RFD was made.
    • Observing that that someone has written a thorough response to a bad RFD and implying that their doing so is an argument that the RFD makes sense, in a word, baffling. This is "throw the witch in the water to see if she floats"-level reasoning (only it's worse than that, even; it's "let's say we'll throw the witch in the water to see if anyone comes around to say that we shouldn't or tries to stop us").
    • Proposing that the redirect be deleted is certain to be more harmful to readers and cannot be squared with a subsequent contradictory plea not to "throw them into obscurity"; should the redirect disappear, that will be a strictly worse outcome in the event that they come across the subject, so opening an RFD on that basis defies logic.
    • To approach another dead horse (because you insist on it): both handle (computing) and Pointer (computer programming) are generic concepts, whereas the subject of this redirect, "FILE pointer", is both common parlance and specific to the C ecosystem, and redirecting *away* from a more specific article where the subject is actually covered to a generic one where it is not is a bad idea.
      • If you are going to make a show of trying to appear to respond to the argument against your RFD, please actually respond to the argument that is being made, rather than just restating or referring back to the original bad suggestion without further elaboration. It was bad then and it's still bad now. Try, you know, elaborating if there is an actual basis for the suggestion that will hold up under scrutiny.
      • As before, opening an RFD on the ostensible basis that the subject does not appear in the target article while suggesting that the redirect point to some other article (NB: where actually is true that the subject does not appear), again defies logic.
    • You are wasting contributor time—by prompting responses to RFDs with untrue premises and obstinately restating them even after having had it pointed out that they're untrue. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:PUFFERY

Formerly redirected to manual of style and was changed in 2020 by User:SMcCandlish without consensus. I believe it should redirect to manual of style first, not an unofficial user essay, as do many other similar redirects. Essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy, but opinions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. This is the obvious choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are 1905 pages that link to WP:PUFFERY. Some of them likely intend to link to the existing target; others were made before the redirect was changed. Since these redirects are often used in discussions, changing this might impact the apparent meaning of comments that include them. The MOS section (MOS:PUFFERY) and the essay are essentially similar, covering the same topic, so it's not a huge issue here, but I lean towards keeping it as-is to ensure open discussions don't have that happen to them. Dylnuge 02:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    I simply don't see how MOS:PUFFERY and WP:PUFFERY redirecting to different things makes the slightest bit of sense. WP:WIKIPUFFERY also goes there, and can remain as a redirect to the essay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    There are plenty of cases in which MOS: and WP: links go to different pages. WP:VAR is about variables, MOS:VAR is about variable styles. WP:NB is notability (books), MOS:NB is use of nonbinary pronouns. WP:US is about userscripts, MOS:US is about the formatting of abbreviations for the United States in articles. In some cases they even split off into different style-related things, like WP:TITLE (article titles) and MOS:TITLE (formatting of titles within an article).
    At any rate, my concern here is that changing a widely used redirect that's currently linked in active discussions might be disruptive to those discussions. Like I said above, it's not major here, since both pages cover the same general idea, but anyone who intended to link the essay with WP:PUFFERY will probably be surprised to find it now goes someplace different. Dylnuge 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination doesn't really make any sense; there is no rule that a WP:FOO redirect must go to a policy/guideline. Furthermore, the entire reason that MOS:FOO redirects exist is so that MoS doesn't take up all of the useful shortcut terms. That is, it is intentional that WP:FOO and MOS:FOO may go to different pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but in this case there is almost no argument for that given that WP:WIKIPUFFERY exists as a suitable redirect. I'm not sure how this personal opinion essay is so important that it needs to take up the redirect over the official guideline on the topic given the redirect can easily be used in error. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. I've been linking to WP:PUFFERY for a while thinking it was essentially the same as the MOS:PUFFERY. While that's a failure on my end, I also think it's likely more than a few users have been doing the same. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Crab (Kirby)

Not mentioned in target. Wish I could bundle RfD nominations. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: You can manually merge them into a single nomination after doing all of them by copy and pasting them into the first one's section and deleting the others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copy everything contained within the bullet point on your subsequent nominations and paste them below your first nomination's bullet point as additional nominations, then delete the other sections/rationales. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolute (philosophy)

The 'absolute' in philosophy is not simply Hegel's definition. See , , , , . The redirect having a history is irrelevant.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, as an editor of the Hegel page with doctoral-level expertise, I can confirm, for whatever it's worth, that this account of absolute spirit is very much specific to Hegel's philosophy. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Restore article Its bold redirection was clearly too controversial to proceed. It should be subject to a real merge or deletion discussion or remain as-is. RfD should not be an end run around having an actual AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Restore article per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ --Lenticel 05:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Restore article - I looked at the version that was quietly pseudo-deleted, and I don't see how is unworkable. The editor that converted the article to a redirect did so with the comment "Applying WP:TNT to a WP:FRINGE article full of esoteric interpretations and WP:SYNTH, it probably doesn't even need to be a separate article but if it did it should proceed from some actual understanding of Hegel. Redirecting to the relevant part of Hegel's page for now." But the article is pretty heavily cited to books with supporting quotes, so I can't see how that's synth. It established a definition of the term, again, with sourcing, so I really can't see how this needs WP:TNT. The article, at a 10,000 foot glance, looks like it is accurately describing something that some people believe, and it has been sourced by publications with editorial oversight, so it looks like this meets the notability guidelines. I'm going to ping @Carchasm: to explain his reasoning because I don't see it. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    I thought that the attempt made by the article to draw similarities between Indian philosophy and Hegel was poorly justified and not a result of the citations, hence my citing of WP:SYNTH, as I do not believe that the cited sources justify these two being the same concept. My general 10,000 foot glance at an article that describes a philosophical concept that was introduced by a western philosopher and yet only has Indian philosophical examples is that something has gone very wrong. I think is the article is restored it should be rewritten to make the focus on Hegel more clear and not put WP:UNDUE weight on rather dubious work in comparative philosophy. - car chasm (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose deletion - if people want to revert my WP:BOLD edit, I don't plan to push back on it, but regardless I think the page history should stay and the redirect makes sense because unlike what was claimed in the nomination, this is an idea that's specific to Hegel, and this could be a WP:SPINOUT from the Hegel page if necessary. - car chasm (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

World Sustainable Development Forum (WSDF)

The first two redirects were created by page moves from implausible format errors. Their names have the format of parenthetical disambiguation, while their target has no ambiguity. The last redirect was created from an implausible misnomer and is not mentioned in target. Besides, the creator is a recently banned sockpuppet. All of these redirects should be deleted, although I'm not sure if some of them meet a criteria for speedy deletion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

FE17

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ytel

Ytel is a completely different company than the newtel this redirects to. This is Ytel- https://www.ytel.com/ Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 27: Difference between revisions Add topic