Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 5

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oranges and orangutans → Apples and oranges  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, as evidenced by pageviews. Target barely mentions it in an unsourced & OR section. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term for its target. Otherwise, it cannot be targeted elsewhere due to WP:XY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing my comment per Beyond My Ken'a comment. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 885 Ghits. Not a fantastically large number, but not nothing, either. Redirects are cheap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken: Any idea what is the source of those hits, such as the origin of this term? (Such a find could change my opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Gee, I only looked at a few of them, let me see ... what I'm seeing is mostly what you would see for "apples and oranges", only using this phrase instead. A quick look in my reference library doesn't show a source. Now that I look again, a lot of the uses seem to be in some way connected to creationism, and the point being made is something along the lines of "apples and oranges are too similar to each other, but oranges and orangutans, now that's another matter" as an argument against evolution. I may have that wrong, I didn't delve in too deeply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: do you have a reference for the use by creationists? Because I don't see any use of primary creationist sources. wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference is the search results given above, and then looking at the results and characterizing them. Since when do we need a specific reference for a redirect, which is nothing more than a service to our readers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's a book that uses it: [1] The phrase is also used in comparing apples and orangutans: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: you're making an argument for an "Apples and orangutans" redirect (go for it if you want), here we're talking about "Oranges and orangutans". The book you provided, hmmm, I think it doesn't prove that it is an idiom, the text also draws other comparisons, which are not idioms. wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether there are more books that use the oranges/orangutans phrase as often as the apples/orangutans one, which is definitely used across multiple kinds of media as a variant of apples/oranges, at least as a title. The book one I found isn't related at all to creationism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created Apples and orangutans. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a form of wordplay much favoured by [Answers in Genesis]. But in my experience, they'll change it up a lot. *Oranges to orangutans*, sure, but also *protozoa to physiscists* or *slime mould to scientists* or whatever. I don't see that there's any need to grab one of these many many variants and turn it into a redirect. Furthermore, they aren't using it in quite the same way, so the redirect doesn't make much sense. It's not about *comparing* two dissimilar things, but about emphasising just *how* dissimilar they are, thereby to (dishonestly) cast doubt on the process of evolution. 86.45.113.71 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, comparing two dissimilar things is what "apples and oranges" is about as well, since the full phrase is on the order of "No, that doesn't hold, you're comparing apples and oranges". I guess they just weren't dissimilar enough for those who use "oranges and orangutans". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Used by plenty of books etc - The pageviews are naff however if it's currently being used by books then it must be a known phrase, Keep per above and REDIRECTSARECHEAP . –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. I'm perhaps more sympathetic than most to the "old" argument, and Eureka Lott brings up a very good point about edit summaries; that alone gave me pause here. Still, its usage has been minimal at best, and there's clear evidence that it's mere use has caused confusion, so it is indeed perhaps best to remove it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DWIP → Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete: This shortcut was created 9 years ago, but prior to today was in use just 48 times, compared to more than 26 thousand uses of WP:POINT, which goes to the same place. Today, at WP:AN/I this shortcut was used by a well meaning editor, but it created some mild confusion. See this diff by Beyond My Ken. I had the same reaction. I brought the subject up with BMK here, and we agreed to deprecate it in favor of WP:POINT. I removed all iterations of it (sample removal) but two; one on BMK's talk page, and one on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209; the latter because it is fully protected, the former because BMK and I were discussing it. There's one other, but it's a transclusion of some sort from a page where it's no longer used. I've also removed it as a valid shortcut on the target page. In removing it, I rarely found it on pages that have been edited in the last three years. POINT is used 550 times more frequently than DWIP, and the use of DWIP can create confusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the future, it'd probably be better to remove such uses after the appropriate discussion as to their use. If it's deleted here, no difference; if it's kept here, those edits were for naught (and could/should even be undone). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The abbreviation doesn't really communicate any information, and POINT is, well, right on point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless I'm completely thick wouldn't this stand for Don't Wikipedia Illustrate Point ? ..... I don't get it ...... Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From the talk page of the redirect, "DWIP stands for 'Disrupting Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point'." --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But if one doesn't check the talkpage then that's not so obvious ?..... Ah well thanks Hammersoft for kindly explaining, It makes a bit more sense not much mind :P –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Not my acronym :) The creator stopped editing years ago, so they can't chime in. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. It might also be confusing since I first thought it was about a Wikipedia radio or something --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's old, harmless, unambiguous, and gets regular use. Despite the nominator's well-intentioned attempt to orphan the template, it's an impossible task. We can't account for its uses in edit summaries, talk page histories, external sites, etc. - Eureka Lott 14:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the "well intentioned" comment, as it really was. That's a valid point regarding edit summaries. But, given that it's use over time has been 1/550th of WP:POINT, I suspect the impact would be quite, quite low. I think in net sum the confusion it would cause by continued use vs. confusion it would cause by its absence is heavier with the former than the latter. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Real world money → Money  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This phrase, in its form, could also refer to Cash. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment searcher is probably looking for something that is the opposite of virtual currency or cryptocurrency. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This doesn't seem right. "Not virtual currency" can refer to coins, paper money, debit cards, and a variety of other physical objects. It's similar to how "not bald" isn't a singular type of haircut and "not an atheist" isn't a singular type of religion. I'd rather that we just be rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sounds too sophomoric. Clearly we need a retronym on the order of "acoustic guitar", but this isn't it. "Real money" would be OK. (Aside: In Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, they talk about "ready money", as opposed to buying on credit.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was disambiguate. Quick draft dab made ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rich people → Wealth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading; its target, Wealth, is not exclusive to people. The concept of "wealth" can also refer to communities or countries, etc. People searching this redirect may not find the topic or subject they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm seeing some redirects to Rich People as album or song title. It's kind of a waste to redirect to Rich (disambiguation) as the phrase is common enough to not require a link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is only one incoming in artcle space. There are several in wp space though. I would say delete, but for the WP space it is kinda WP:essay SO NOT SURE.

Weak delete. 84.236.96.172 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify to the 1929 film and the album for now. We can always put a "see also" to wealth and rich (dab) there as well --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab per Lenticel. Put a link to high-net-worth individual somewhere there (possibly in "See also", since it doesn't meet WP:DABMENTION for the exact phrase "rich people"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, richest people redirects to Lists of people by net worth. - Eureka Lott 15:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of cartoons → List of animated television series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page links to animated television series, but cartoons can mean many this, including political cartoons, comic books, and even a "cartoon" as a preliminary sketch. This redirect should be deleted. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Da Vinci drew many cartoons. This 'is probably not what people are looing for. Better to let the search engine do it. 84.236.96.172 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. If kept, this should go to Cartoon or cross-namespaced to Category:Cartooning. Cartoons aren't limited to animated television series, as there can be animated films, cartoons in magazines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Cartoons" =/= "Animated television series". They started as short subjects in movie theaters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to say that I did know about the visual art meaning of "cartoon" when I wrote the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was a moron back in 2007 who made a lot of stupid and pointless redirects. This is nowhere near one of the worst I made, all of these have since been deleted, but I agree this isn't a good redirect. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was disambiguate. Will draft a quick dab ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Public life → Politics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not finding any evidence that these terms have an exclusive connection. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private life is a song article. 84.236.96.172 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Public image or Public relations as synonym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The phrase is too broad, with too many meanings to just re-target. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm good with disambiguating as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify I'm okay with Tavix's option to dabify --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Public Life is an album, and there's also Public Life with Randy David. wikt:public life gives Social life and Politics as definitions, so the dab should include links to both of those. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Tavix. As Beyond My Ken points out, the phrase is indeed too broad, but I believe it is the best to disambiguate it rather than just deleting the redirect. Disambiguation would solve the issue for good. Ceosad (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GTA: San Anderes → Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing to delete. redirectviews shows a daily average of 4 views 1 view. Obvious misspelling, trivial edit history. GTA: San Andreas is the proper redirect to target article. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC); edited 23:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe if it were a plausible typo or a phonetic misspelling; as far as I can tell it is not. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are more plausible typo candidates like GTA: San Andres, but typing in "gta san" should get searchers to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - Anyone with sense would search "GTA San An" .... I appreciate everyone's not great with spelling and all that but this doesn't look like a common or known misspelling. –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia's own search engine is significantly better than this redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.