Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 27

February 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2016.

Ex patria
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6%23Ex patria

Appeal to fallacy



 * 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 Argument from fallacy. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Appeal to fallacy → Fallacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_fallacy&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-28&end=2016-02-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Appeal_to_fallacy stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Umm ... ??? Don't see the obvious connect between this phrase and the target, other than the fact that the target is a word in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Argument from fallacy. SpinningSpark 19:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd be inclined to agree with Spinningspark, but Appeal to emotion might just carry an WP:XY, since it has (right now) "a logical fallacy" in the first sentence. Assuming that were changed to "a logical fallacy", is a redirect to Formal fallacy, which this is not. So would Formal fallacy be the better retarget? Not sure. Formal fallacy links to Argument from authority in the body of the text, but has Argument from fallacy by way of the navbox . Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure I'm following what you are trying to say, but let's take it a bit at a time.
 * Your reference to WP:XY seems to imply that you think that Appeal to fallacy "could equally point to multiple targets" of argument from fallacy and appeal to emotion. That is not so, they are two different things; appeal to fallacy relies on there being a fallacy in the opposition argument while appeal to emotion relies on the opposition's feelings.  Of course, a specific instance of a fallacious argument might be pressing both those buttons at the same time, but that should not be confused with where the redirect should point for a specific term.
 * You claim this is not a formal fallacy, but it is precisely that. Claiming a conclusion must be wrong because the argument contained a fallacy is an error of logic, not an error of fact, and the former is the definition of a formal fallacy.
 * Formal fallacy is not a better retarget since appeal to fallacy is only a subset of formal fallacies. SpinningSpark 00:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can't follow the links, how can you expect our readers to? We think 'tis sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. So is it WP:XY then? Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can follow the links all right, what I can't follow is your broken logic, or why you think the links you are presenting are even relevant. In answer to your question, I though I was quite explicit on that; no, I don't think this is a case of WP:XY. SpinningSpark 02:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll put it another way. There is a logical inconsistency at appeal to emotion, if you follow the premises and conclusions, at least in the classical sense of predicate calculus, such that it says essentially that this is neither true nor not-true, .e. implicitly denies the law of excluded middle, unless you want to redirect to Multi-valued logic or somesuch, which would seem unwise, it is neither X nor Y, so WP:XYZABCD. Si Trew (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares if there is an inconsistency at appeal to emotion? It has nothing to do with this redirect, and I'm not going to toothcomb the article to find where exactly it is if you can't be explicit.  I don't know where you are getting that the law of the excluded middle is denied in that article.  It does not say that the conclusion is neither true nor untrue, only that we cannot tell from the argument whether or not it is true.  But even if the article did say that, it has nothing to do with this redirect. SpinningSpark</b> 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is more something for undecidability, and whoever said emotions were logical?! You're right, after all, retarget to Argument from fallacy. Anyone who wants a course in propositional calculus can find what they need from there, and it's the better place to put it. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2016 (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.

Microcomputer software
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Microcomputer software → Microsoft (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microcomputer_software&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-28&end=2016-02-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Microcomputer_software stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Not specific to Microsoft. Microcomputer doesn't seem to discuss it specifically; found the category by the same name with a search. Any retarget suggestions? — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 10:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, a homonyms page could be created grouping all possible subjects concerning this term. -- TheSola10 (The Mailbox) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be a ~homonym of "microcomputer software"? Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Category:Microcomputer software. All obvious (to me) caps/hyphen variants are red. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete promotionalism of Microsoft -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this is promotionalism. The redirect doesn't have Microsoft in its title and the target is (we must assume) NPOV. More likely it is just a kinda or rather  if we had that. (Ex patria, elsewhere, would also fall into that cat, but WP:NOTDIC: I'm not sure if that applies to proper nouns.) Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:REDLINK. The alternative, retargeting to a category page, is a WP:SURPRISE, especially to readers not familiar with Wikipedia. Steel1943  (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2016 (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.

Greyhound-Syfa
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Greyhound-Syfa → Linux (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greyhound-Syfa&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-28&end=2016-02-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Greyhound-Syfa stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Unlikely that someone looking for a distro called Greyhound-Syfa is looking for information on Linux in general; Greyhound-Syfa is not a notable subject nor is it mentioned at Linux in any way, if anything would be confusing as to why Greyhound-Syfa redirects to Linux. Aoidh (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD confusing, not at target. Another case of directing the specific to the general, which is fine if the general covered it at all. It's not in List of Linux distributions; if it were, I'd suggest redirecting it there (nowhere else according to Special:Search, but perhaps I ain't searching right). Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't got to the bottom of this yet, but Wikia reports a speedy deletion from this here. I can't find any history of it being deleted on WP, of course, because I am not an admin (nor want to be): well, all the history I get is created as "maybe a useful redirect". Perhaps WP:PROMO too? Seems to be a distribution of some specialisation of the Ubuntu HCI. Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And WP:RFD can eat itself, "Somebody finds it useful" does not mean that a redirect can be created with the edit summary "maybe a useful redirect". SiTrew is a wonderful Wikipedian may be a useful redirect, shall we find out? Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment stats (from the new Wikimedia tool) are at zero, which I don't believe. Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's an obscure enough thing that even a mentioning over at List of Linux distributions is unlikely to ever happen. Best to just get rid of it, I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Si Trew above, subject is not covered at all in target or even potential alternate targets. Not notable enough even for a redirect.Dialectric (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2016 (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.

<span id="Ella Fitzgerald/Louis Armstrong">Ella Fitzgerald/Louis Armstrong
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 retarget to Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong collaborations. (non-admin closure) sst✈  10:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * <span id="Ella Fitzgerald/Louis Armstrong">Ella Fitzgerald/Louis Armstrong → Ella Fitzgerald (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Fitzgerald/Louis_Armstrong&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-28&end=2016-02-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Ella_Fitzgerald/Louis_Armstrong stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Seems like a classic WP:XY situation. This can equally refer to either Ella Fitzgerald or Louis Armstrong, so why would this redirect to just one of them? -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete MOS:SLASH,WP:SUBPAGE and this doesn't make sense -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ella and Louis, an album by these two performers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Ivanvector. Nice find. Nice jazz. Si Trew (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Ivanvector. When I first saw the redirect, I thought it was the title of their joint album. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose retarget per 70.51's reasoning and that it isn't a likely search term for the album. Besides, why not Ella and Louis Again? -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at addressing that. I think that every potential target for this term is linked from Ella and Louis, so it sort of acts as a set index; a reader typing this would not be disappointed with finding that article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, it surely must be better than the current target. WP:NOTPERFECT, but better. Si Trew (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want something of a set index, The Complete Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong on Verve would probably be your best bet. There are several potential landing points for this redirect... (not that I'm advocating for one) -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a better target by a short head, Retarget to what Tavix wasn't advocating, The Complete Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong on Verve; Ivancector's suggestion is prominent near the top, so I think either way it is going to get people to where they want to go,if they can click. Either is much better than the current target. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SIA/DAB/Listify at either "Ella and Louis" (1st choice, move existing article to "Ella and Louis (album)") or "Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong" (2nd choice); or retarget The Complete Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong on Verve (3rd choice) It is clear comments above that Ella and Louis have collaborated regularly and several of their collaborations bear the "Ella and Louis" label. It seems obvious to me that the Ella and Louis collaboration is an unambiguous concept despite not having an official name, and we should create some kind of list to fill the reader's curiosity. Deryck C. 16:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting thought. It's plausible to create a full article on their relationship and projects together, it wouldn't even need to be an index. That's something we could look into, especially if WP:JAZZ was up for it. I agree that it'd have to be a different title though. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong collaborations. Well done CoffeeWithMarkets. Deryck C. 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong collaborations (which I just created) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. Yeah, that works for me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong collaborations per CWM -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:25, 2 March 2016 (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.