Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 12

October 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 12, 2015.

Molecular Machines and Nanoassemblers



 * 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. Deryck C. 08:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Molecular Machines and Nanoassemblers → Molecular nanotechnology (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Molecular_Machines_and_Nanoassemblers&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't think this redirect with inappropriate capitalization is needed. Leyo 08:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Çomment I have special knowledge of this having worked for Accelrys for seven years. I can probably add into this but rule myself out. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a plausible typo and therefore potentially useful redirect: see WP:RFD. --Rubbish computer 14:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:XY. Nanoassembler redirects to Molecular assembler, and Molecular machine is its own article. While they're both examples of molecular nanotechnology, this seems an unlikely search term generally, and specifically for the concept of molecular nanotechnology. This is not unlike redirecting Solutions and Compounds to Chemistry. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I rule myself back in, molecular modelling is more likely or molecular modeling depending on which we we do the WP:ENGVAR, as it stands we have it in Br. Eng. and the American spelling (speling) is a redirect thereto. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Not a plausible typo or legit search term, really. They're separate if related topics. It's a bit like having a redirect Horses, Ponies and Donkeys, or Ford and Chevrolet Muscle Cars.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK I shall pitch in in what essentially is an essay (perhaps can become an article), and you get the wonderful chance of seeing my article creation method in process:

A nanomachine is a machine comprised of atoms at nanoscale, usually consisting of three or four hundred atoms. The aims of a nanomachine are various, but the current trends are to insert them into the human body instead of invasive surgery, for such small tasks as (scrubbing fat off of arteries need to find an article for this).

The term has not settled down between machines used in the body and those used in materials modeling, where the machine essentially roves across the surface of a solid metal or crystalline structure in a way perhaps analagous to how an enyzme works in biochemistry. Accelrys <-- this is purely PRIMARYSOURCE cos I did it --> showed in silico that a nanomachine would rove across a plate of gold and remove nascent hydrogen atoms from the surface.

The classic definition of the simplest machine is that is one of either a lever, a pulley, an inclined plane, a plumb weight, or a Volkswagen Beetle. A nanomachine fits none of these descriptions, so perhaps it is wrong to call it a machine. It has no Mechanical advantage, for example, which all classic machines have, it has no power source, so some (who?) would argue it would be wrong to call it a machine at all, in the way we don't call an aspirin a machine even though it has effects on the body.

Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget having thrown that together, it seems to me that the -> nanorobotics serves the turn quite well. I don't see what the fuss is about. That was off the top of my head and unreferenced, but we have a well-referenced article there that describes it more lucidly than I could. Retarget to Nanorobotics. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the reasoning behind that? What do you think about the arguments by User:SMcCandlish above? --Leyo 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To recast it: Who on earth would enter that exact phrase, including the capitalization, an expect to find an article here at that title? This isn't about which article is where and whether we need a new stub, but about whether a redirect at the phrase "Molecular Machines and Nanoassemblers" is useful to readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. my reasoning as always was, does it help readers find what they are looking for, and if not, what would? As SMcC implies, if it were used in anywhere near like this full form elsewhere, then I should be keen to keep it, expand it, or retarget it.


 * To my eyes at first, it seemed like the title of a book, journal article, TV documentary or some such, but doesn't seem to be, and this exact phrase produces 0 ghits (except WP mirrors) for me. The two conjoined terms would appear to be near-synonyms, e.g. as used here:
 * In the light of all that, I agree with SMcC that this title (or similar with other caps etc) is harmful. As it stands we have too many overlapping terms, that's not our fault but that the technology is new enough that the definitions of nanomachine, nanorobot, nanoassembler, molecular machine etc. have yet to settle down, and we follow not lead. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (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.
 * 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.

Jesus as above all angels



 * 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. Deryck C. 08:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus as above all angels → Jesus (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_as_above_all_angels&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Certainly Jesus is above all angels in Christian thought, but this idea isn't discussed on his article. BDD (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and possibly per WP:REDLINK if this is notable enough for its own article. --Rubbish computer 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - In practical terms, I don't think this is really that helpful a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that this is a specific Christian theological debate, as in some denominations consider other angels to be above Jesus while others consider Jesus to be above all others. There is a word for it but I can't think of it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Epistle to the Hebrews which is most recognized as the New Testament epistle which defines this concept. The study is Christology, but it's Hebrews that first and most directly makes this claim. See for something of an explanation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul was always writing epistles and the Hebrews never got back to him, I would be a bit annoyed about that. Surely if you send someone a letter you could expect a reply sooner or later. Si Trew (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop inserting chit-chat, anecdotes, and other off-topic noise. This is the third such comment by you I've run into at RfD in about five minutes. This kind of irrelevant commentary is not helpful, just a distraction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage there is a bit oblique. The idea is sort of touched upon in the text quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I still don't think that would make for a very helpful redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that's the best I can find at the moment, without reading in detail through our many articles on Christianity. I'm open to better suggestions. This is certainly a known concept, though, and this should redirect somewhere. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we don't have Jesus above all the angels though, which depending on your version of the Bible is how it is in Mark, I think (I only use [KJV]], I am not very Christian just C of E). Jesus above all the angels is I believe a line in Jeanette Winterson's Oranges are not the only fruit, so it should be there somewhere, but it maybe is a deliberate misquote. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be a likely search term, and none of our articles are appropriate targets. Maybe someone can write a section about this at one of the mentioned articles, since it seems like a potentially encyclopedic Christian theology point to cover, but even then it should have a more easily understood section name (unless something like "Jesus above all the angels" or "Jesus above all angels" or "Jesus above the angels" or whatever is a recurrent term of art found in multiple sources).   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: When the target is the first word of the term in question, then it seems particularly unhelpful to keep the term as a redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so much unhelpful as redundant. Your argument implies we should also delete → Jesus and so on. We have  exactly for this purpose, but I imagine neither "Jesus Christ" nor "Jesus above.." are full names in the Wikipedia sense;  might also be confusing or needlessly insulting as it's not as if it's a pseudonym (and  similarly).
 * If it is wrong, that Jesus is not (in any WP:RS such as the Bible, which for this purpose I think we can regard as RS) then I would be inclined to agree with you per WP:RFD confusing. Question: "What does it mean that Jesus was a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7)? (my emphasis)" is quite interesting on the subject.
 * Perhaps we could delete it as WP:NOT a concordance (essentially, WP:NOTDIC), but I still think your particular argument, that it is redundant, is not enough. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2015 (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.

Classification of Products by Activity
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 26%23Classification of Products by Activity

福澤 諭吉
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 21%23福澤 諭吉

Sun Hwa (Filipino school)



 * 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) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sun Hwa (Filipino school) → Antipolo (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Hwa_(Filipino_school)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Sun Hwa (Filipino School) → Antipolo (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Hwa_(Filipino_School)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The first redirect used to be a stub, and was then redirected to the article about the city where the school is located. However, anyone looking for this school would be far more likely to use the full name Sun Hwa International Academy rather than Wikipedia-style parenthetical disambiguation, and the school is not mentioned at the target article anyway. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lenticel our abashed Filipino expert should know, so I am going with that (and also because I have a brain in my head, but Lenticel presumably has local knowledge of how schools are usually named formally and referred to informally). Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it has a weird modifier of "Filipino school" for starters -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's true... would we tend to use "Filipino school" to mean a school in the Phillipnes, or one (perhaps abroad) that teaches in the Filipino language? The obvious analogy is which redirects to the DAB The English School), and these aren't schools in England but those that teach in English. We haven't Filipino school, so that doesn't help. We do have  as R to DAB at Dutch School (wh ich includes entries for architecture, painting etc),  redirects to Education in Germany, [[French school is red, Spanish school is a DAB and again not purely about education. So there doesn't really seem to be any established "rules" about how we name  foreign-language schools or schools attended largely by expatriates. American school is also a DAB for example, listing English-language schools outside of the United States (and other things) and also, perhaps more confusingly, Escuela Americana El Salvador which it is not clear to me from the article or its own website whether it teaches largely in English, (Latin American) Spanish, or both. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2015 (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.