Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 22

July 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2013.

Terrestrial radiation



 * 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 Background radiation. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


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

This redirect is incorrect. Terrestrial radiation is any electromagnetic radiation emitted by Terra (Earth), whereas background radiation is, according to the article, the ubiquitous ionizing radiation that people on the planet Earth are exposed to, including natural and artificial sources. The two are completely different and terrestrial radiation should not redirect to background radiation. (Google Terrestrial radiation). Gerrit CUTEDH 14:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Comment. This redirect is correctly targeted. Please take note of item 3 in the table near the top of the target article.  Terrestrial radiation is a type of ionizing radiation to which people are exposed. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Sun (esp. Sun, the source of most terrestrial radiation. Si Trew (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * terrestrial – Unless I'm mistaken, the source of anything "terrestrial" is the terrain or ground of a terrestrial planet. The present target specifically uses the term "terrestrial radiation" in a table as one type of background radiation.  Also see Background radiation (and since terrestrial radiation is shown in other parts of the article, it is appropriate to target the TOP of the article). –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Background radiation, where the term is bolded as in a lede. The proposed retargeting does not sound wise, as terrestrial radiation does not come from the sun. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Background radiation, as BDD noted.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 00:56, 10 August 2013 (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.

Jyoti Singh Pandey



 * 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) 21:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * → 2012 Delhi gang rape case (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The father of the victim requested that the victim should not be named, something this redirect does. Beside that, it is a violation of WP:BLP (in this case: recently deceased persons). The Banner talk 11:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC) This entry is later placed by hand, as the original nomination seems to have failed to create an entry.
 * Keep - From one of the sources in the article: "It comes after the father of Jyoti, a factory employee in the Delhi suburb of Noida, said he wanted 'the world to know' his daughter Jyoti's name and of her ordeal. He said: 'I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks,' said Mr Singh Pandey. 'They will find strength from my daughter.' Daily Mail January 7 2013. Can you provide some evidence that he doesn't want her name, since this news article quite clearly states the opposite. But it doesn't matter either way, in my view. First, yes she is deceased so BPL does not apply, and since her name has been reported in media worldwide, many of our users will have heard the name without knowing how we titled the article. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Daily Mail erred. See this article from the BBC: The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published. The Banner talk 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They did, I see. But this doesn't change my opinion. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just a redirect to be used as a search term. It is not a "published" article.  The redirect can be made unprintworthy by the use of R unprintworthy, which would keep her name out of a printed version of Wikipedia, if and when that happens.  Cat's out of the bag, as shown by the reference citations that headlined her name, which were recently replaced. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:01, 22 July 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 4%23Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule

Template:R related



 * 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.  bd2412  T 16:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What should be the target of these redirects? There are at least three redirect templates that would be suitable as the target: R from relative, R to related topic, and their current target, R from related word. All of these redirects should be kept, although they use an adjective that applies to all three templates, yet does not clarify which. In other words, which target is most suitable for these ambiguous Rcat redirects?&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:R from related word (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep as is. These are all shortcuts/redirects to a redirect category template and, while they are vaguely targeted at best, that would still be so even if they are retargeted to either of the other two redirect category templates, both of which already have numerous shortcuts/redirects. The first redirect, R related, as an example has nearly 250 transclusions, which means that if it is retargeted, all those redirects would have to be changed, since they all are supposed to populate Category:Redirects from related words.  These shortcuts may as well should stay just as they are and continue to target Template:R from related word. –  Paine Ellsworth  <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue; font-family:Arial;">C LIMAX !</b> 02:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd just like to point out that these are all template redirects to a type of template that is supposed to categorize other redirects. While the Rfd tags are on these template-redirect-shortcut pages, the main redirect category template, R from related word, is unable to correctly categorize several hundred redirects, and those redirects are actually miscategorized into Category:Redirects for discussion and Category:Template loop warnings, such as with the Gravity redirect to Gravitation.  Hopefully, then, this Rfd can be resolved and the tags removed from the shortcuts as soon as possible. –  Paine Ellsworth  <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue; font-family:Arial;">C LIMAX !</b> 21:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The usage of these Rcats by many redirects, as Paine Ellsworth noted, is not a reason to keep their targets the same. It is very possible to change the Rcats used on each of the redirects that use them within a short period of time. Removing the template shortcuts listed in the shortcut box on the documentation of R from related word and placing them on the new template helps to insure that the shortcuts are used for the new template in the future. As for miscategorization, the Rcats will only be temporarily placed in such categories—and, once this discussion is concluded, they will be properly recategorized automatically. Many RfD discussions in the past have involved widely used templates, and this has almost never been a problem. Neither large usage nor miscategorization is any problem in this case. The real problem here that requires any bit of attention is where these Rcats redirect to, and whether their target template is appropriate.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 02:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Those commenting in favour of retargetting need to say which target they would prefer.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Ultra vires &mdash; take it to WP:TFD. RfD discusses redirects in article space, I thought. TfD is the place to discuss templates. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that Tfd is an appropriate place to discuss templates and template redirects; however, since there is no special discussion place for "Project redirects" or for "Portal redirects", the Rfd cannot be just for Mainspace article redirects. Rfd can be used to discuss any redirect from any namespace. –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. See Templates for discussion. Template redirects belong here. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, and thank you, BDD, for the correction. –  Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Absent evidence of misuse, why bother? Is anyone going to go through and fix all the uses? --BDD (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I would! I'm already planning on fixing the thousands mislabeled with R from modification. In comparison, this task is nothing!&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate. These six redirects should all target one of three templates. They currently all target one of them. So I don't see why we need to make any change at all. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * keep They redirect to by far the most obvious target (as redirects are words, or phrases, not topics, while 'relative' means something different). So they are fine, cause no problems, and there's nothing to fix.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 20:34, 22 August 2013 (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.

Turn-taking
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 wrong forum. Page was retitled as suggested through a request at Requested moves. Non-admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Per WP:LOWERCASE, the article should be at Turn-taking. The uppercase Turn-Taking can redirect there. Cnilep (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I had already filed a technical RM request to fix it, which will probably be executed soon. Nothing to discuss, really.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's done now. This should be closed as done.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2013 (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.