User talk:Sbb1413/Archives2020/February

Nomination of Give him an inch and he'll take a mile for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Give him an inch and he'll take a mile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Give him an inch and he'll take a mile until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Π meridian" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Π meridian. Since you had some involvement with the Π meridian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 20:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Hi Soumyabrata, Could you please explain this edit to me? I had previously removed the quotation marks believing them to be unnecessary, but you characterized this as a copyright violation. How so? Also, thanks for subsequently adding a reference to make sense of the quote. nagualdesign 05:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"P:b" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:b. Since you had some involvement with the P:b redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Spoken French" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spoken French. Since you had some involvement with the Spoken French redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 18:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Before creating redirects...
...it's usually a good idea to check whether there aren't alternative targets to the one you've had in mind (, for example, is an alternative spelling of the French name Enguerrand). Also, at the creation page, you'll see the deletion log entries if that page has been deleted in the past; it's not usually a good idea to recreate redirects that have previously been deleted after a discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of One world, one language


A tag has been placed on One world, one language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've similarly tagged for deletion XVIXII. – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * XVIXII is not at RfD, you're welcome to participate there. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"466453" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 466453. Since you had some involvement with the 466453 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Some more redirects
Hi! I've nominated a few more redirects for deletion at RfD: Mean acceleration of the Earth, 1.000, 1'000, Lingwa, Latinish and Nautical units. The discussions are at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24 and below, you're welcome to comment there!

I've had a close look at a portion of the redirects you've created and there are certainly many useful ones there. But, as you might have noticed, there a also quite a few that have been retargeted or have ended up nominated for deletion, by me or by others. Most of those cases have to do with ambiguity: the redirect was plausible for the target you had chosen, but it was also plausible for other targets. Assoc. for example is an abbreviation for "association", but it's also used for "associate". The Antikythera mechanism can be described as an ancient computer, but there are also other devices (even if less famous) that can be described as such, so a redirect to the most general article discussing the concept is much better than a redirect to one specific exemplar. Octonal is an alternative name for Octal but it's also the name of a chemical mixture. Latin diacritics can be used to refer to the diacritics used in the Latin language, but also for the diacritics of the Lain alphabet more generally. Kpm was a correct redirect to Gravitational metric system, but there was already an article about the specific unit at Kilopondmetre. Calq is a possible misspelling of Calque, but it's also a way to render CALQ. And so on.

Most of the time, having a look at the search results before creating a redirect should reveal such ambiguities. In such cases not creating the redirect is usually a much better option, as the possible targets will normally come up in the search results when any reader searches for the term. If on the other hand a redirect is created, the reader will be taken to one of the topics, and their route to the others will be blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Axiom Segment.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Axiom Segment.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Axiom Segment.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Axiom Segment.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don&. Since you had some involvement with the There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)