Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 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 delete. Deryck C. 12:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SCOTUScare → Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If we need to keep this redirect, King v. Burwell seems to be a better target (since the term was coined in the dissent in that case). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Brian Babin. He's currently introducing a bill actually called the "SCOTUScare Act of 2015" in the legislature, [1], which is both an obvious and a stupid political stunt. Honestly there are two things that bewilder me about American politics: guns, and resistance to universal health care. Boggles the mind. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SCOTUS-care v SCOTUS-scare; scare from/of/by SCOTUS also sometimes uses this spelling -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It should point to the ACA page as that is what it refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.4 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No demonstration so far that this is more than a fleeting disparagement by the dissent. If we do keep it, we should probably re-target to an article where it is used and explained: King_v._Burwell#Dissent. With all due respect to Brian Babin, the vast majority of users typing in this term would be surprised to be redirected to his page. If it becomes widely used in the future, like Obamacare, then redirecting to the act itself would make sense. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - my !vote was partly in jest, but also not really. With respect to 24.151, no respect is really due to Rep. Babin, he's an idiot.^[1]

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 result of the discussion was delete. We clearly can't agree on one target for this emoji, so deletion is the most viable outcome. Deryck C. 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 👾 → Space Invaders  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I considered tagging this CSD R3, because to me, it's totally implausible (I have no idea what this character is, let alone how to type it!). This was originally a redirect to Extraterrestrial life, but now redirects to Space Invaders. I don't see what this has to do with the game, and I think it's an implausible redirect to Extraterrestrial life. I notice a similar discussion resulting in keep. Extraterrestrial life maybe, but Space Invaders? Adam9007 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we should keep this one. The emoji itself is a clear reference to the aliens from Space Invaders. Most of the other emojis redirect to something too, since they're easily accessible with an iPhone keyboard, and useful to those who don't know what certain emojis represent. —Will^(B) 02:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a better target is suggested; this isn't one of the Space Invaders characters, and as far as I can tell there are no Space Invaders emoji. Ivanvector (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should either be deleted or retargeted. Space Invaders isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I see this character. It says here it's known as a Space Invaders emoji, but also as a video game monster emoji (not Space Invaders-specific). If this is the this case, maybe Mob_(video_gaming) would be more appropriate? (though not all appear like they do in this character) Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this emoji definitely refers to Space Invaders specifically; it's a widely-recognized symbol, in the gaming community at least. Just look at the image in the Gameplay section of the Space Invaders article—the monster sprite for one of the species is identical to this particular emoji. (There are other alien species in the image as well, but the one represented by the emoji is by far the most recognizable.) —Will^(B) 12:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (By the way, I'd be looking up links to back up my point, but I'm typing on a phone right now so it's not particularly convenient right now.) —Will^(B) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the characters look even remotely like this emoji to me. I see here what looks like a goomba with comically large eyes or wings protruding from its head. Is it a font issue? Out of curiosity, I just tried looking up this page on my Android and got an image that looks like the head of a grey alien, which is a very long way from the Space Invaders aliens. If I do an image search for "space invaders emoji" I see ones that look like this, which is certainly a Space Invader but it's not what I see here, and on other pages I see that emoji listed alongside the grey emoji, suggesting that they are separate characters. Can someone with an iPhone look up this page and report what they see? Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: I just realized that I inadvertently answered your question below in response to BDD. Check out that article I posted, it might help clear some things up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On my missus' android smartphone thingy, it comes up as a red octopus-like icon with yellow antennae, green eyes and a black nose or mouth. On my Windows 7 version of Mozilla Firefox, it comes up as unrecognized character, as it does on Google Chrome for Windows 7. That is WP:RFD#D2 confusing for a large number of readers. (Heaven knows how one would input it.) Apparently it is U+01F47E ALIEN MONSTER^[2] but WP:ARTICLETITLE rather prefers WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's only "identical to" some other icon if one's glyphs and fonts are the same as those intended by the author. That need not be the case, QED above. Si Trew (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Extraterrestrial life. It's typical here for emoji to redirect to the things that they symbolize, and I think that it's clear from the above that this is meant to be an "alien monster". Similar emoji redirects include 👽 → Extraterrestrial life, 👺 → Tengu, 🐲 → Dragon, 👯 → Playboy Bunny, and 💀 → Human skull symbolism. For at least some of us it is not one of the Space Invaders aliens, so leaving as-is makes it a 🍏 to 🍊 redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see this the same way it appears in Si's link, though maybe that's just the way my browser (Chrome on W7) is rendering both of them? I see an alien face with pointy teeth and eye stalks, which is not a Space Invaders alien as far as I know. As I recently commented, I think we should rethink the present consensus on these Unicode and symbol redirects. If there's a slam-dunk, no-brainer, unambiguous target, fine. Otherwise, these are just Easter eggs, unnecessary for navigation and potentially confusing. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that link only shows a larger version of the character, which still varies based on your software (and hardware?). I'm looking on a Chromebook now, and it looks like an angry squid with light-up stalks (no longer eye stalks). Still doesn't look like anything I know of from Space Invaders. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly switch back and forth between editing from a computer (Windows 8 Firefox/Chrome) and my iPhone and it's been crazy seeing just how different it is. My computer shows an angry green alien with eye-stalks but my phone renders what looks like a pixelated purple crab. This is an excellent article that explains the situation and contains a graphic showing 5 versions of this emoji. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• soft redirect to wikt:👾 as it's defined there. We don't have an article on "alien monsters" so this is the best way for someone to find out what the emoji is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to wikt:👾 per Tavix, to break the stalemate, pending a discussion about what should be done (per BDD) regarding all of these fairly ambiguous emoji redirects. I haven't struck my earlier !vote because I'd be happy with that result too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the probability of someone actually trying to type an emoji into the search box is very small. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least Space Invaders does not work since this creature does not look of any of the one from the game.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the stereotypical monster has an article on Wikipedia, Bug-eyed monster -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but the problem with this emoji (as is the case with many other emoji) is that it appears very differently depending on the reader's platform, as noted above. We don't have the technical capability to redirect to different targets based on the user's operating system or browser, so wherever we target this, it's going to be surprising to some users. Apparently iOS users see a Space Invader, and won't be expecting a page on bug-eyed monsters. Conversely, some other users see the bug-eyed monster (myself included) and won't expect a redirect to the video game. And even some other users see an icon which is neither of these two things. Disambiguation was suggested but I think we should resist this. It's not that 👾 is ambiguous: it's literally a different glyph to different users. We disambiguate apple because it's a word in our language with different meanings, but every user who renders this page sees the green text apple; nobody is seeing an entirely different word in green right there, and if they were, how would we disambiguate? How would we even know, for that matter? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Implausible. Bazj (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the image has a completely different shape and color when I look on it from my PC/Wii U and my Ipad. Had I not known that they were from the same RFD I would have assumed that they were two completely different images. The Ipad image has somewhat a resemblance to one of the Space Invaders but the round faced black creature with big eyes connected to lines ememnting from the top of its head on my PC looks nothing like one at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.254.210 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussion - I've started a village pump thread on how to deal with these types of redirects, not meant to bias this discussion, but because I think there's a broader issue here as some of you have noted. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just discovered that the appearance of emojis are font-dependant; they look different depending on font. Seems to defeat the purpose of not just this, but all emoji redirects doesn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the font change only seems to partially change the emoji. Is there some place we can post screenshots of how this looks on different systems for comparison? Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a shot but I can give an example. The Playboy Bunny image on my Ipad are two yellow skin women wearing what is either a black shirt or one-piece bathing suit and bunny ears. On My PC, however, it is a single black outlined face with black hair and bunny ears. Also on a different RFD for cue sports the image on the Ipad is the black 8 ball whereas on my PC it is 6 plain black circles inside a black triangle.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • For me, it's a black 8-ball by default on the linked page, but when I set Firefox to override the page's font settings, it becomes the coloured circles in a triangle I see here (I have yet to see it as black circles in a black triangle though, and I'm using a PC. What operating system, browser, and font are you using?). But that's a discussion for that RFD. The "alternate" version of this emoji (looks like the "round faced black creature" you described) also looks nothing like a Space Invaders monster to me (again, when I set Firefox to override the page, it becomes the green alien I see here.) Adam9007 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emojipedia shows the different appearances on different platforms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • No, the font definitely plays a role it their appearance, because the one I linked to looks different still, and changes into the green alien when Firefox sets the fonts. Adam9007 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • UPDATE: I believe the website I linked to uses the Helvetica Neue font, which is what the iPhone 4 uses. It seems to be a non-standard font, hence the emojis look different. I'm wrong; it appears to use the EmojiSymbols font. When I set it to use Arial, they all appear as they do here and elsewhere. I wonder if this font is meant to overcome this issue? Adam9007 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Related discussion: wikt:👾 has been subject to "verification" over at Wiktionary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:31, 8 July 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.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Hallelujah! (film). [Since Ivan insists on it. Non-admin close.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Swanee Shuffle → Nina Mae McKinney  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Term is not mentioned in the article, and it does not appear to refer to anything in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hallelujah! (film) which discusses the significance of this song and its performance in the film by McKinney. Also possible retarget to List of Irving Berlin songs (chronological), which lists the song but has no other information about it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hallelujah! (film) which discusses the significance of this song and its performance in the film by McKinney. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I just think I should blatantly restate what I said before on this one, because it's a little bit obvious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 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.

The result of the discussion was keep. (Early close, WP:Snow close) Deryck C. 09:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• إسلام → Islam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

'Delete as Not a plausible typo. Bazj (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not a typo; viz. ar:إسلام. Gorobay (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gorobay, unless Bazj can explain why it's a typo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Google Translate says its Arabic for Islam. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Islam has a connection to Arabic, so someone searching for Islam with an Arabic keyboard would most likely enter "إسلام" into the search field. SONIC678|Hang out with me! 21:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a typo, and the valid original language spelling -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• February 29, 1900 → February 29  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

1900 was not a leap year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarget to Leap year bug, where the date is specifically mentioned as a common behaviour with most spreadsheet software.+mt 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While it is not a date on the Gregorian calendar, this date existed for those using the Julian calendar at the time. For example, see the O.S. birth date for Giorgos Seferis. However, nothing encyclopedic happened on that day. +mt 06:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It may be valid in non-Gregorian systems but the article doesn't consider any 29 Feb except the Gregorian. There's no February 29, 1904, or February 28, 1900. A pointless redir. Bazj (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every fourth year is a leap year, except years that are multiples of 100 (e.g. 1900 which is not a leap year) which are not also multiples of 400 (i.e. 2000 which is a leap year). February 29, 1900 did not exist, in the same way that June 31, 2015 is not a real date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. All agree we shouldn't keep this redirect as is. Some argued for deletion and others for retargeting, but there's no agreement on the best alternative target. Default to delete. Deryck C. 12:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Revolution → French Revolution  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Since when was the French Revolution called the Great Revolution? It might be my ignorance talking, but I've never heard this title applied to this event. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobsbawm referred to it this way many times in his books, the redirect didn't existed so I decided to created it, I doubt any harm was done. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great Revolution seems a bit ambiguous to me, even if somebody called it that because they felt like calling it that. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of revolutions and rebellions so the reader can choose whichever one they want, or delete -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Great Rebellion, which is a disambiguation that covers "revolts". -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:16, 9 July 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.