Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 17

July 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 17, 2012

Wikipedia Zero



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → History of Wikipedia (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Maybe I am missing it, but I can find no mention of this project in the target article. Looking at the project page at MediaWiki it sounds like a great project, but this redirect does not seem to help users find content they are looking for. it certainly didn't in my case, I,had to do a Google search to find out what this is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is at the bottom of the 2011 section. Try CTRL+F next time you are looking for something; it saves hours. Marcus   Qwertyus   21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. When I clicked it it simply went to the top of the article. Amd I'm using an iPad so ctrl F is not an option. Is there a way to make it work for everyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This should help with your iPad problem. What is your browser?  Marcus   Qwertyus   03:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect goes to the 2011 section, which mentions Wikipedia Zero in the third paragraph. The sources there point to both the MediaWiki page and the announcement of the project on the Wikimedia blog. Gobōnobo  + c 21:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * keep. I was going to suggest refining it to the specifc section, but it already points there. I also wondered about pointing it at Wikimedia Foundation, which has a list of projects (I forget the section title) but Wikimedia Zero isn't mentioned there that I can see (I don't have a find within page facility on this 6.5-year-old version of IE mobile), but that would probably be a better target if it were added (I don't know the inclusion criteria so don't know if it should be), but until such time the best target is probably the current one. 10.64.0.169 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * keep The mention has been added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

هاشم محمد طالب



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Muhammad Hashim Gazdar (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The Arabic in the redirect reads “Hashim Muhammad Talib”. The target article mentions neither the Arabic nor the transliteration. The redirect should be retargeted, or deleted if no suitable target can be found. Gorobay (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have notified four Arabic-to-English translators of this discussion and invited them to join in. BigNate37(T) 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the same translation for the redirect title. I can find no indication that it refers to the person described in the current target, though the machine translation of the original content (now readable at Talk:Muhammad Hashim suggests that it may have referred to a person living about the same time.  Delete both this and the Muhammad Hashim redirect (the page this was initially moved to) if a connection can not be substantiated by the end of the discussion period.  Rossami (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

History of the Soviet Union: Part II



 * 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 both. Ruslik_ Zero 17:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → History of the Soviet Union (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → History of the Soviet Union (links to redirect • [ history] • )         [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Utterly pointless redirect. Since there are no numbered "parts" to History of the Soviet Union (which is actually broken down into a number of manageable time-period chunks, as well as hundreds of sub-pages), this is a search term nobody will ever use. Also nominating History of the Soviet Union: Part I. Mogism (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * keep both. These titles were the original locations of content now at the date-delimited articles and represent the earliest split of the single history article when it first grew too large. Accordingly these redirects should be lept to maintain the edit history and to prevent link rot. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no edit history to either, and neither has a single incoming link. Mogism (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly Part II has the history of the move and several retargetings as the page name evolved, all are just as valid and important under our license as the addition or removal of content. Link rot is not really a concern for internal links as we can find them and update them. However we cannot know how many links from outdated mirrors and other we bsites, nor if we find them can we do anything about them. All we know is that they get viewed more than the 2-3 hits/month background noise rate so there is a >0 chance such links exist, therefore in the absence of the redirects doing any harm deletion offers zero benefit and a non-zero chance of harm. Redirects are so cheap that this is a clear reason to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping both halves of a move's history is unnecessary for attribution purposes, and as an errant sentiment it seems to cause a lot of counter-productive feet-dragging at RfD. BigNate37(T) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. These redirects are causing no harm, and as the former titles of content, there is a valid reason to keep them. I have tagged them as unprintworthy though. BigNate37(T) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both per Thryduulf. No valid reason to delete has been offered.  Rossami (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Michael Yuan



 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 14:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Maiko (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect makes no sense and should be deleted. The name isn't mentioned in the target article and isn't a plausible misspelling. It has no significant history. Nick Number (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedily as overlooked vandalism. This title was originally created in 2006 as an obvious vanity page.  It was quickly speedy-deleted.  It was recreated three years later as the current redirect.  Google finds a number of "Michael Yuan"s but none appear especially notable and none have an obvious connection to this (exclusively female) profession.  The creating user's contribution history is inconclusive.  Rossami (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Internal logic



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Consistency (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not mentioned in the target, which does not mention any category theory at all. Or what is meant by internal logic? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Note: I do not think that the colloquial term is adequately described by the formal concept of consistency, it means that some logical consequences are formally correct, but it does not mean that any closed system is consistent. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * nomination repaired. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * keep with a hatnote or disambiguate. This goes exactly where I expect it to, as in the context of formal logic, 'internal logic' relates to the structure of an argument, specifcally that a valid argument must be consistent with itself (i.e. 'if the sky is blue then it is sunny, so if it is sunny then the sky cannot be blue' is internally inconsistent, and therefore invalid). This is the subject of the current target and so the redirect is not incorrect. If 'internal logic' also has a meaning in category theory (something I know nothing about) or other field then a hatnote or disambiguation page is required. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep per the plain definitions of the terms.  The "internal logic" of a theory or argument is the structure of its arguments (irrelevant of the truth or falseness of the postulates feeding it).  That is to say, a valid theory must be structured such that it is impossible to generate a logical contradiction merely from the structure of the arguments.  The structure can be expressed formally, informally, symbolically or mathematically.  When "no theorem of the system contradicts another", the argument is said to be internally consistent.  That definition is most concisely stated at Logic (and is cited there) but the wordier version on the current target is equally true.  I have no strong objection to a retarget nor to an improvement of the current target to use more plain language.  I do not, however, see a good reason to delete this redirect from the encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, category theory is a subset of mathematical logic and is subject to the same requirements for consistency, validity, completeness and soundness as any other branch of logic. I am finding no evidence that "internal logic" means anything different in this context.  Rossami (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So internal logic simply refers to your calculus (supposing you are working formally) in contrast to the arguments used in a meta language? Or what does it mean? For more specific usages see . --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But also in topos theory it seems not to be a fixed, formal concept (I am not confident with it). Thus a disambiguation is probably not necessary. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although as far as I remember I've never seen any logician, analytic philosopher, computer scientist or mathematician refer to "consistency" with the term "internal logic", I think that meaning can be kept since at least two people think that this is its meaning (a source would be helpful, though). Never the less, the concepts of "internal logic" as more or less defined in algebraic set theory, categorical logic, Lawvere theories, topos theory and the like deserve a dedicated article with content, and under my impression are similar enough to each other that one can (and should) cram them into a single article. --Daniel5Ko (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This redirect causes harm by dropping the uninitiated off at a page that does not even contain the phrase in question. Deletion is a poor solution, but as it is this situation is certainly problematic. BigNate37(T) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stub out Oops, my bad, I created this redir in a rather fly-by-night fashion, I'm afraid. Internal logic is a literary term of art used to describe the behavior of a character as being consistent within the character's own supposed world view; e.g. Since we know Hamlet was told the details of the murder by his father's ghost, Hamlet's subsequent behavior, though considered bizarre by the other characters, still has internal logic. Although I don't have great sourcing on that readily at hand, I'll take an opportunity to stub this out in the near future. Sorry for the confusion. -- Kendrick7talk 02:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * N.B. it can also be said of that a work itself contains internal logic, i.e. that it is consistent unto itself -- sort of the opposite of a work containing a hackneyed plot device such as deus ex machina (where something comes unexpectedly out of left field and resolves the plot). -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, mathematical logicians usually use the term ⟨…⟩ logic for a specific calculus or something like that, but not for saying it is logical. Thanks for the information. Delete . --Chricho ∀ (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that the redirect should be deleted is assumed from the nomination. While nominators are allowed and even encouraged to reply to comments and participate in the subsequent debate, please do not use the bolded "keep/delete" format in subsequent comments.  It creates confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion and can give the impression that you are trying to have your opinion counted twice.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not even sure if it should be deleted (especially since I am not a native speaker). Since the page is called for discussion I thought that it would not be assumed. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.