Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Xannir (talk | contribs)
99 edits
Xannir (talk | contribs)
99 edits
→‎Patricia Celan: Speedy keep
Line 14: Line 14:
* (Given all the arguments that it was just about a pageant/"1EVENT" despite the other biographical info, I figured maybe she just fits into [[Miss Charity BC]]) --[[User:Wiki2008time|Wiki2008time]] ([[User talk:Wiki2008time|talk]]) 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
* (Given all the arguments that it was just about a pageant/"1EVENT" despite the other biographical info, I figured maybe she just fits into [[Miss Charity BC]]) --[[User:Wiki2008time|Wiki2008time]] ([[User talk:Wiki2008time|talk]]) 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as there is content about her at the target and while there isn't enough to write an article about her, her name is a plausible search term. {{ping|scope_creep}} if an article gets deleted at AfD (or otherwise) redirects to it can be speedily deleted (see [[WP:CSD#G8]]) so you don't need to nominate them here unless there is an issue that will remain if the target article is kept. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as there is content about her at the target and while there isn't enough to write an article about her, her name is a plausible search term. {{ping|scope_creep}} if an article gets deleted at AfD (or otherwise) redirects to it can be speedily deleted (see [[WP:CSD#G8]]) so you don't need to nominate them here unless there is an issue that will remain if the target article is kept. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep''' This doesn't meet criteria for [[WP:R#DELETE]]. Nitpicky nomination that makes no sense for a reasonable search term. If the target article gets deleted, this redirect will automatically be deleted with it. A discussion about the redirect just delays and confuses matters, especially if this discussion extends past the AfD. --[[User:Xannir|Xannir]] ([[User talk:Xannir|talk]]) 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


====Demo-1====
====Demo-1====

Revision as of 13:20, 18 June 2020

June 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2020.

Patricia Celan

Article at Afd. Consensus was for delete. No mention of redirect being specified. scope_creepTalk 23:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through all the pages I made/contributed to that were nominated for AfD and requested they be redirected if they get deleted, I figured it was fair game. Sorry. Newbie here. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Given all the arguments that it was just about a pageant/"1EVENT" despite the other biographical info, I figured maybe she just fits into Miss Charity BC) --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is content about her at the target and while there isn't enough to write an article about her, her name is a plausible search term. @Scope creep: if an article gets deleted at AfD (or otherwise) redirects to it can be speedily deleted (see WP:CSD#G8) so you don't need to nominate them here unless there is an issue that will remain if the target article is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This doesn't meet criteria for WP:R#DELETE. Nitpicky nomination that makes no sense for a reasonable search term. If the target article gets deleted, this redirect will automatically be deleted with it. A discussion about the redirect just delays and confuses matters, especially if this discussion extends past the AfD. --Xannir (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demo-1

These two redirects should point to the same target, or else be deleted. Given the broadness of this term, while targeting these to a disambiguation may be possible, I'm currently leaning toward deletion and letting search results take care of it. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese

Doesn't seem right that these two similar redirects target different pages, but I'm not sure which one is the right target. Consider this a neutral nom. Sharper {talk} 19:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree that the legal writing subsection should be the proper redirect, but man, these two pages could use some better interlinking, because they seem to both provide definitions for "legalese" in different contexts. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of group theory

Glossary of group theory was moved to Group theory terminology in 2015. That article was then AfD'd. The result of the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group theory terminology) was "redirect to Group theory". That page has nothing looking like a glossary. So, delete Glossary of group theory, or perhaps turn it into a redirect to List of group theory topics? Tea2min (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps restore the page to an older version from 2008 that actually looked like glossary (as suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group theory terminology)? – Tea2min (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomographic function

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 virus

Retarget to SARS-CoV-2. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose - I started the covid 19 virus redirect. I suggest, even though this term does contain the word "virus", when people use the term they are almost always referring to the disease, not the underlying virus that causes it. As per WP:COMMONNAMES these redirects should remain, as is.
So, Soumya-8974, did you go to every article where these redirects were used, and count up how often, by context, the content seemed to imply that the writer actually meant readers to go to Coronavirus disease 2019 and how often the writer meant them to go to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2?
Why would you make your recommended redirect target be SARS-CoV-2, when that is itself a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started the covid 19 virus redirect. I suggest, even though this term does contain the word "virus", when people use the term they are almost always referring to the disease, not the underlying virus that causes it. As per WP:COMMONNAMES these redirects should remain, as is.

Why are you WP:MERCYing in here? Also, the phrase "covid 19 virus" will always refer to the coronavirus that caused COVID-19, regardless of ignorant people.

Why would you make your recommended redirect target be SARS-CoV-2, when that is itself a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2?

I want to retarget all of them to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, I am too lazy to type the full title. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am too lazy to type the full title. Why type it all if you can copy-paste? ;) im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is in real danger of being a WP:TRAINWRECK, though I see fairly solid consensus for retargeting Covid 19 virus and Wuhan coronavirus to the virus article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assmar

An unlikely misspelling of the target, Assmar is also both a given name and a surname. I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a misspelling per se. This form is used by a (child) character in Lord of the Flies. But there are only three uses on Wikipedia, and Eduardo Assmar at List of senators in Brazil is the only one I'd say definitely meets WP:DABMENTION. Francisco de Melo is listed as a Count of Assmar, though his own article gives him as Count of Assumar. I don't know if the former is a misspelling or a valid alternate form. D&D has an Aasimar race. I'm leaning delete—these scraps don't add up to a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough for a surname page or a dab page. The Lord of the Flies mention gets some google hits, but mostly on urban dictionary and the like. Hog Farm (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or DAB. I surprise myself but saying it, but "assmar" does seem like a plausible phonetic transcription of "asthma" such as might be made by someone who doesn't know the spelling. I come across a surprising amount of people who don't know the spelling for the names of medical conditions and so resort to crude transcriptions or "egg corn" interpretations, such as Alzheimers as "old-timers" or Asperger's as "assburgers", even independently from different people on social media. Given this, it does not seem implausible that someone might type "assmar" into a search bar if they did not know the correct spelling. Given this, as redirects are cheap, it might as well remain unless there's an actual topic that warrants its own page, such as one of the names mentioned above if they are notable. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limits in the United States of America by Jurisdictional distinctions

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 speedy keep. I see no reason to prolong this discussion, per the keep !voters. This redirect doesn't meet any of the conditions at WP:R#DELETE, and is created from a pagemove, which we should avoid deleting. Note that "unlikely search term" is not enough justification for deletion. If anyone wishes to object this closure, feel free to revert, but I don't see any benefit at all prolonging this RfD to seven days. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not grammatically correct and an unlikely search term Needforspeed888 (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2020 (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.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.0

WP:MADEUP term. A search in DuckDuckGo and Google shows no results. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Corona

Ambiguous term. I haven't seen any RS sources using this term to refer to the coronavirus pandemic in the US. The title of this redirect may also refer to the beer, or the places in the United States which are named Corona. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allah, S.W.T

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian protests

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. Hitler

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 withdrawn. Users are overwhelmingly opposed to deletion and I was also inclined not to delete. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hitler was ever referred as such. Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It really doesn't matter if Hitler was referred to in this fashion, the question to ask is "Is this a reasonable search term that someone might use in order to get to the article on Hitler." I think it is. Redirects are cheap, and there's no reason to delet this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this redirect is silly. The nomination is. He is referred that way when citing him, for example the Mein Kampf article cites Hitler as "A. Hitler" in the 17th item in the References section. His name in this translation of his private will and testament by the United States Government Printing Office is also transcribed as "A. Hitler". There's also a 2010 film which is titled "A. Hitler", though we don't have an article of it yet. So clearly the title of this redirect is used. Another proof that this redirect is useful is the pageview count. This redirect got 33 pageviews since creation (which is 27 April 2020), which is a lot IMO. I advise the OP to withdraw this RfD and speedy close this. (edit conflict) --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what others have said, his paintings were signed with that name. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reasonable search term that is attested in several sources, including Hitler's own works (such as Vienna State Opera House). Glades12 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2020 (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.

GF protests

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The "GF" in this redirect seems like a plausible acronym to me. A search in DuckDuckGo shows George Floyd immediately. There are also YouTube videos ([1] [2]) which shortens the protests into GF. The 9 pageview count since creation (3 June 2020) is not bad either. So I think this useful redirect should be kept, not deleted. Note that we discuss redirects based on policy and consensus, not the author of those redirects. Making it the latter is ad hominem and doesn't really benefit Wikipedia. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems a little ridiculous to me. I don't know why we need this Anon0098 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing exactly three groups of google hits for this exact phrase - the current target, OCR errors for "of" and a few uses in sentences about how the writer's girlfriend disagrees with something. The second and third are obviously inappropriate for a redirect so in practical terms this is unambiguous. The uses - I'm seeing YouTube, Twitter, Quora, Reddit, Imgur, and many other forums, local news sites, blogs, etc, etc. demonstrate that this is widespread (uses come from at least the US, UK and Canada) and a plausible search term. All in all it's clearly a useful redirect so it seems that Composemi got this one right. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate and plausible search term. --Xannir (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Federation

This redirect isn't technically inaccurate, as Pakistan does indeed use a federal model, but I have not heard this term commonly used to refer to Pakistan. It is misleading as it leads one to think that it is the official name of Pakistan.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the keep and retarget sides of this RfD make good points. Relisting for further discussion and consensus (which in my opinion is not yet achieved).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caragdur

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#Caragdûr, where the version of this with a diacritic was deleted. Didn't see this existed in time, or I would have bundled it then. I'm sure this can be speedied, but not 100% for sure what the right criterion is. Hog Farm (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 LG ICC Awards

I would like this redirect deleted because the 2015 ICC Awards weren't sponsored by LG Electronics. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UFN 176

I would also like this redirect deleted because UFN 176 was caused by sock puppetry. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as it appears to have been very recently created and it's redirecting to a redirect that doesn't target a section. Looking at the history it appears the nominator created the redirect? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is qualified for G7. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of old links, thus keep per K4. As an aside, I wish this was solved without renaming redirects as it has been digged into a deep mess judging by the immense amount of weird pageviews and what seems to be loss of history ([5]). It doesn't qualify for G7 because of this passage: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move (given this was caused by apparently a substantive instance of sockpuppetery). Please don't rename redirects. — J947 [cont] 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suck my cock

While Fellatio is an inappropriate and touchy subject, a page about it should still exist on Wikipedia. However using this very vulgar slang as a redirect is too inappropriate for Wikipedia and is also extremely silly as nobody when using proper language refers to penises/vaginas as the bad "c word" which is considered among worst of the worst of swear words. The "Suck my c***" slang is more often used as an insult to a person than something said while having oral sex. --Otis the Texan (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find it unlikely that anyone looking for the term "fellatio" is going to use this term to search for it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this redirect was not correctly nominated or listed here, I've now fixed these issues. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NOTCENSORED apply here, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with vulgar redirects and this one is getting a large number of hits - almost 1 a day on average last year - so it is clearly a search term people are using. The target is directly relevant to the search term so anyone using this to find content about this act is getting exactly where they want to go, demonstrating it is useful. Those who are searching for this because they like looking up rude words or whatever are not inconvenienced in any way and might learn something at the target. It also has not attracted significant vandalism - just once instance in the 9 years since the redirect was created, vs three in the 10 years before that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, I'd say this is the primary topic for this phrase. I'm kinda surprised this isn't a User:Neelix creation. Profane slang, but not censored here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Hog Farm. WP:NOTCENSORED clearly applies here. CycloneYoris talk! 04:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_17&oldid=963201818"