Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 9#1574201830
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 9|November 9]]=
==Clean gas==
: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
- {{no redirect|1 = Clean gas }} → :Carbon capture and storage (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clean_gas&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-09-21&end=2019-10-20&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Clean_gas stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Clean gas|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clean gas closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Clean gas|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clean gas closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Clean gas|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Clean gas closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Not sure about the current target. It seems parallel to clean coal but a google search shows the term most closely associated with natural gas rather than carbon sequestration. It doesn't seem to be a particularly common term and has no incoming links, so it may be worth deleting if no suitable target is found. Wug·a·po·des 04:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
:: You could put in a redirect to Pyrolysis#Liquid_and_gaseous_biofuels or Methane pyrolysis (which redirects to the same target). Read the info there (KALLA), the method mentioned is a sort of carbon capture and storage of the carbon, but done before it is actually burned (it converts it to hydrogen directly, and then the hydrogen (which has no carbon) is burned.
Genetics4good (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Renewable energy which is where Clean energy redirects. Alternatively, consider natural gas if that's the primary topic for clean gas. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- What about Biogas? I had a look over Renewable energy to see if we could get more precise, but I don't know if this would exclude other valid topics. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate since there are so many viable targets. feminist (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22clean+gas%22&t=h_&ia=web This DDG search] shows that "clean gas" does not have a specific technical meaning. It is simply the plain meanings of "clean" and "gas" used together in various contexts, with some non-notable company names thrown in. It's best for Wikipedia to reveal search results. Deryck C. 11:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Second choice disambiguate. Deryck C. 11:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. When you exclude corporate names and results about cleaning gas appliances (using the search term what is "clean gas" significantly reduces them), this is used as a term meaning variously natural gas (sometimes but not always in contrast to town gas), hydrogen gas (sometimes in the context of having been extracted from natural gas or purer methane), clean energy in the form of a gas and syngas, in addition to the sum of parts meaning of a gas that is clean (with at least two meanings of "clean"). The only one of these targets the internal search engine lists on the first page of results is natural gas - and that in 13th place (excluding this redirect). None of the other targets appear in the first six pages of results so readers (when they get to the search results, sometimes several clicks away from where they arrive) are very clearly not best served by the search engine. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- These are very good reasons to disambiguate. You're probably right that its better than retargeting or deleting. Wug·a·po·des 04:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: It may be helpful for someone to draft a disambiguation so we can see what one would look like.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dismabiguate per lack of unambiguous meaning. Although it doesn't have a clear meaning, it is used in various contexts. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete because of a lack of unambiguous meaning, and this redirect may therefore cause confusion. A disambiguation page is not possible without a number of clear meanings from articles that mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, {{u|Deryck Chan}}, and {{u|Shhhnotsoloud}}. With no incoming links, and the DDG search results showing the term has no clear technical meaning, there are no obvious dab targets. Even {{u|Tavix}} posited, in his or her relisting, for someone to post a draft dab page to see what that might look like. Thus, delete, for now, without prejudice to re-creation in the future provided it's not to the same target of course. Doug Mehus T·C 01:07, 17 November 2019 (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.
