This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2015.
Black Feminist Criticism
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. I seriously considered Rich's proposal, and I don't think it would be at all incorrect. But it would likely be misleading, since the book's title is synonymous with a type of academic thought. An article about the book at that title would be fine, or even a
WP:DIFFCAPS situation if
Black feminist criticism were about the academic topic. But as such, it seems more likely to confuse or disappoint readers. I would imagine
Barbara Christian would still be a top search result for the term. --
BDD (
talk)
16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Recently created redirect obviously created in
good faith. The problem is that there is no actual section to redirect this towards, so when people search "Black Feminist Criticism", they don't get what they are looking for.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect may cause confusion". Is it meant to be criticism by black feminists or of them? Let alone that a feminist who is black is not necessarily a black feminist, and vice versa.
Si Trew (
talk)
03:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Barbara Christian who wrote a book with this as the main title. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 04:00, 19 February 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.
Central meridian
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 A sound case is made that the present redirect is inappropriate, and that there are at least two candidate articles with parenthesised variants of this title, so a dab page is indicated. Guy (
Help!)
22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Central meridian (planet) - As I understand it the central meridian is the
meridian of an astronomical object which passes through both of the object's poles and its apparent centre as viewed from Earth, and this seems to be the only use for the term. Compare with
Prime meridian which is a reference meridian used to define 0° on a projection map, but isn't necessarily the same thing.
Ivanvector (
talk)
20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I was thinking about the use of this term in cartography and map projections when I created that redirect. I believe I clicked on a red link to create it, but that now seems to have gone. The articles noted by Thryduulf probably should link to the term; better yet would be to expand the redirect into a short article which explained the use of the term in cartography. The
Central meridian (planet) article didn't exist at the time, and I'm not convinced it's particularly reliable.
Modest Geniustalk15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - since the merge was apparently incorrect and did not happen, I think the proper treatment here is to movecentral meridian (planet) over the redirect, per Thryduulf, and add a hatnote "For the meridian used as the centre of a projection map, see
prime meridian". Or better wording, I'm not good at hatnotes. It seems the astronomical definition is actually used in sources as-is, while the geographic meridian that is used as the central point of a projection is properly called a "prime meridian" and not a central meridian. And we already have an article on that.
Ivanvector (
talk)
16:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The prime meridian is not the centre of a map projection, it's the starting point of a coordinate system. The central meridian is the centre of a map projection --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
It's very different. A coordinate system is not dependent on a map. Many different projections, projection methods, maps, can be created onto which the same coordinate system can be applied. And vice versa. --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
04:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
You're being imprecise, as a map projection still results in a Cartesian flat coordinate system, not to be confused with the angular volume coordinate as in geographical/planetary coordinates.
Fgnievinski (
talk)
05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
They're independent properties. Prime meridian is the origin of spherical longitudes on the globe; central meridian is the origin of Cartesian coordinate x on a flat map. If you don't use a map projection, you don't need a central meridian either. If you do need a projection, you can pick any combination of prime meridian and central meridian.
Fgnievinski (
talk)
05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per
User:Fgnievinski. We should probably add
Prime meridian into that DAB, too, even if technically incorrect, since it might help people to find the information they are looking for. I've made the DAB at
Draft:Central meridian (noting that was a redirect that was moved to
Central meridian (planet) by
User:DGG and probably should have not left the R after a Request for Creation), I would rather not just boldly replace this R with the DAB while it's being discussed. I'm mot sure the disambiguation of (planets) and (map projections) is ideal – I'd have had (astronomy) and (cartography) – but since they serve properly to disambiguate the topics that's not worth worrying about.
Si Trew (
talk)
03:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
Radiation constant
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.
You are (kind of) right; unfortunately, the terminology is confusing here. You wouldn’t call the Stefan–Boltzmann constant itself a “radiation constant”. However, historically, a (see bottom of the
Stefan-Boltzmann constant article) was called Stefan–Boltzmann constant. Meanwhile, however, Stefan–Boltzmann constant means σ, so that a is now sometimes simply called radiation constant (it should always be called radiation density constant to avoid this confusion, but it isn’t. Oh well.) So yes, a disambiguation would make sense. And no, there is no article yet about the first and second radiation constants, so the link to them should currently be red, but not point to
Stefan-Boltzmann constant which has nothing to do with it.
Uli Zappe (
talk)
02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The radiation constant is related to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and is described at the bottom of the
Stefan–Boltzmann constant article, so the redirect is correct. c1 is the first radiation constant and c2 is the second radiation constant. The distinction is clear to me. --
Mark viking (
talk)
01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The “radiation constant” a the
Stefan–Boltzmann constant article refers to has nothing to do with c1 and c2 (the first and second radiation constants); its correct name is radiation density constant. So what seems clear to you is in fact a prime example of the confusion that stems from linking “radiation constant” to
Stefan–Boltzmann constant without any disambiguation.
Uli Zappe (
talk)
02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation A disambiguation could be something like this:
If you don’t want to have a dedicated page for the first and second radiation constants, you might add information about them to
Planck's law (as this is the context they belong to) and link to this article. However, this article is already quite long …
Uli Zappe (
talk)
02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Si Trew: A draft is on
User:Uli Zappe/Draft. It is meant to be inserted after
chapter 2.2 Spectral energy density form in Planck's law, becoming chapter 2.2.3. Frankly, it’s a bit awkward because the original article a) uses B instead of the correct SI unit L for spectral radianceand b) makes spectral radiance the “default” unit of Planck’s law, while this is usually the spectral radiant exitance M. So the new chapter is not as straightforward as I would like it to be, but I cannot rewrite the whole article now ;-) …
Uli Zappe (
talk)
18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Uli Zappe: I've subbed it, with the bits I'd remove struck out and those I'd replace them with underlined. It read just fine as it was, but I think the bits between the maths can be written a little more simply without losing accuracy (e.g. the "standard" in "standard SI" is redundant when SI is a standard). If I've made any statement inaccurate, I apologise: of course accuracy comes before readability when it comes to a technical article. (I've not touched the formulae.) As for rewriting the whole article, as an intelligent but ignorant reader I'm happy to sub it (in draft) and pass it to you to make sure it all makes sense etc.
Si Trew (
talk)
23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Si Trew:I’ve incorporated all your suggestions (removing the strokes and underlines), and then added three modifications to the resulting version myself (again using strokes and underlines), with explanations in brackets. Please have a look at these changes and tell me if you agree.
As for reworking the whole article, I hesitate to do this. In Germany, SI units and symbols are used almost universally, and so I’ve never encountered the B that is used for L here. But I see that some of the sources referenced in this article also use B. OTOH, the source I reference in my draft (which uses L) is from nist.gov, i.e. it's a U.S. source. So I just don’t know how the common usage in anglo-saxon countries (and in other English Wikipedia articles …) is. Switching from spectral radiance L to spectral radiant exitance M as the default quantity would certainly make sense from a content POV, but is not trivial, because all formulas would have to be edited accordingly (and should be consistent with other English Wikipedia pages dealing with this subject). So I’d prefer if someone from
WikiProject Physics could take care of that (if that’s what’s desired).
Uli Zappe (
talk)
16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I think Uli is the expert here. I am happy with it. I did look at the articles and can understand the maths but not my domain of interest, and I think Uli there has the expertise to say. The maths is all tied up properly, and Uli even put something to me in draft and all has the right maths tags and so on to make it look pretty to readers (Nice job, Uli!). So I think it is up to Uli more than anyone else. Fine by me.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
BDD: I’m just waiting for the OK (wrt/ English language) from
Si for my last three modifications of my draft. If he agrees, I’ll insert my draft as chapter 2.2.3 into
Planck's law, and then the disambiguation can link to this chapter.
Uli Zappe (
talk)
03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't get pinged to this, maybe notifications don't work with pipes? Anyway I'd say you could close this with the dab pointing at Planckian locus for now, and once Uli's info is added to Planck's law then the dab can be fixed. I also can't comment on the math; it looks good but it's over my head.
Ivanvector (
talk)
20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Ready?: OK, somehow
Si seems to have vanished into air, so I just went on and incorporated the new Radiation Constants chapter I wrote into
Planck's Law; I’m relatively sure that remaining English errors, if any, are harmless. I also updated
Radiation constant accordingly. So from my POV, the new
Radiation constant version could now go "official".
Uli Zappe (
talk)
18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)reply
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 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.
::Comment For the laity who are not lay men, we also have an article at
femicide (badly formed), a redirect to it at gynocide (well-formed), and even worse
gendercide (ow!), as well as
infanticide.
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.
Héroes
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 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.
Grim Downsizer
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 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 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 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.
Borshin
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 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.
Borshun
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.
Comment. It may be as a result of
rebracketing (
metanalysis, DAB) of the indefinite article, as well as misspelling. As such it belongs better at Wiktionary, but
bortion is red. My
Gsearch for "had a bortion" shows some nontrivial results for "a bortion" including an e-book, which is probably not RS from WP's point of view but a good citation of first use at Wiktionary:
Howe, Della (2000).
Son of Abortion. Xlibris Corporation. p. 126. I don't want my baby taken away. Dr. Miller took mine. Mine was only three months old inside me. I had a bortion and he took it away˘I want a baby!
"Borshin" (above) has nothing on Gsearch (in fact, the RfD above has the only two Ghits).
Comment. This is written in what seems to be an attempt at the vernacular:
"hesteringey" (21 September 2013).
"Wantababy". The breast blog in the world. wordpress.com. 'Are you kepeing the baby then?' I arsked. My voice was a croke. I wantid her to say, 'No, iyum going to have a borshun.' That was mene of me but I dident want eny one to be abel to kepe there baby, if I couldent.{{
cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (
help).
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.
Debauchery
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 dabify. We appear to have reached unanimous consensus. Please let me know if you have any concerns. --
BDD (
talk)
21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)reply
While technically correct, the term debauchery has a more sexual connotation to it. Article does not talk about this. People have complained about this on the
talk page, so these are clearly doing harm.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
00:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector: I don't see any way to prevent listing individually with only one template substitution since templates don't (to my knowledge) have a parser function to auto-find its target if it is a redirect. However, this might be possible with
Twinkle since it has a way to detect if a page is a redirect, but has no way currently to list multiple nominations. It may be a question to bring up on
Twinkle's talk page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Either of the above, or soft re-directs to Wiktionary. Though I think both the traditional and the deabauched meanings probably warrant articles. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
I wasn't quite sure how to do that in this case, since the entries without descriptions are just sometime-synonyms. While descriptions are common and helpful,
MOS:DABENTRY also says "In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." --
BDD (
talk)
13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The proposed dab page seems fine. I had always read of "lust" as "desire" and "debauchery" as "action" upon that desire, but that's a normal editing quibble.
24.151.10.165 (
talk)
16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I say disambiguate by moving the draft over the R. As for adding descriptions, I think that would be unnecessary
WP:DICDEF. Myelf I would not have thought of lust and debauchery as at all the same, and I would delete that: the entry on
lust mentions it only in a definition of
seduction: 'Seduction is a type of lust, because seduction is a sex act, which ravishes a virgin. Lust is a sin of sexual activity, and, “…a special quality of wrong that appears if a maid still under her father’s care is debauched”' — by which debauchery clearly means deflowering: perhaps that should be added to the DAB, but deflowering →
virginity and should probably be refined as {{
R to section}}Virginity#Cultural value , where it is mentioned (although deflower →
Virginity#Loss of virginity, in the section immediately above). Debauchery is not, however, mentioned at
virginity.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)reply
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.