Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Micericky (talk | contribs)
218 edits
Moving misplaced comment made on wrong nomination.
Line 38: Line 38:
*'''Move''' [[Medical deserts in the United States]] to [[Medical desert]] and tag the article with <code><nowiki>{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=June 2020}}</nowiki></code> per [[WP:INUSA]]. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Move''' [[Medical deserts in the United States]] to [[Medical desert]] and tag the article with <code><nowiki>{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=June 2020}}</nowiki></code> per [[WP:INUSA]]. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
*Concur with Tavix. As a Canadian, I have never heard of medical deserts, and would guess this is an American term. --[[User:Micericky|Micky]] ([[User talk:Micericky|talk]]) 21:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
*Concur with Tavix. As a Canadian, I have never heard of medical deserts, and would guess this is an American term. --[[User:Micericky|Micky]] ([[User talk:Micericky|talk]]) 21:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
⚫
*Medical desert is a term used in Europe, as well. https://europeansting.com/2020/01/16/medical-deserts-in-the-european-union-the-practicalities-of-universal-health-coverage/[[User:Marcywinograd|Marcywinograd]] ([[User talk:Marcywinograd|talk]]) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


====Patriarch of Rome====
====Patriarch of Rome====
Line 196: Line 197:
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:purple">''talk!''</b>]]</sup> 00:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:purple">''talk!''</b>]]</sup> 00:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
---------
⚫
Medical desert is a term used in Europe, as well. https://europeansting.com/2020/01/16/medical-deserts-in-the-european-union-the-practicalities-of-universal-health-coverage/[[User:Marcywinograd|Marcywinograd]] ([[User talk:Marcywinograd|talk]]) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 19 June 2020

June 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 19, 2020.

English royal family

This should be retargeted to a page that relates to the monarchs before England and Scotland merged. Probably Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#English_monarchy, but want to seek community input first. Interstellarity (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reparations Agreement

WP:PRIMARY topic of this is the article currently located at "Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany", as you can tell by searching Google Books. buidhe 12:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as-is. Just about every war-ending treaty contains a reparations agreement. There is no reason to think that if a reader types those two words with a capital 'A' they are looking for any specific one. See also Reparations Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines (1956) and Reparations Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Vietnam (1959) in List of treaties. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reparations Agreement is a broader subject area than the one case among others of the agreement between Israel and Germany. Redirecting it to this specific agreement erroneously implies it is the only reparations agreement ever -- clearly not the case, and as per Narky Blert's examples above. --Chefallen (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's not the primary topic why are the first 10+ results on Google search dealing with the specific reparations agreement? buidhe 15:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of results in a search for the term “Reparations Agreement” in reference to the agreement between Israel and Germany does not negate the existence of other reparations agreements from which it needs to be distinguished.
Furthermore, and of course, it not possible to check every instance, but it is reasonable to assume that the shorthand “Reparations Agreement” is used in articles and books multiple times once the context is established that this refers to the Reparations Agreement between Israel and Germany. --Chefallen (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PTOPICs are not decided on the basis of top Google hits. If they were, the PTOPIC for apple would be Apple, Inc.. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, they are not solely decided on the basis of Google hits, but prominence in search engine results is one factor that is considered when determining the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page as suggested above. --Micky (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health care desert

Delete to encourage article creation, we shouldn't be redirecting from a general term to an article about the phenomenon in the US. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch of Rome

Should these go to the same place, or is the current setup good? The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome, and the Holy See includes his ecclesiastical sphere, but it's a good deal "larger" than that, both geographically (the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch are subject to the Pope, not coëval with him) and in scope (the Holy See functions as a state under international law, not merely as an ecclesiastical jurisdiction). Since the patriarchate is basically just ecclesiastical (nobody cares about Francis-as-patriarch except in an ecclesiastical sense), I'm wondering if we'd do better to send both to the Pope article. Or if it is important to keep the Patriarchate redirect where it is, maybe because the title of Patriarch isn't as common anymore, i.e. it's more historical, should we change the Patriarch redirect to match? But then, it is a title of the Pope. So...I'm rather confused here, and that's why I brought both to RFD instead of being bold :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahhh tough one, I don't know how to !vote exactly, but I'm leaning towards both being directed to the Pope article. --Micky (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Camper

Apparently, medical desert is also used in Europe to refer to underserved areas, lacking in health care specialists. https://europeansting.com/2020/01/16/medical-deserts-in-the-european-union-the-practicalities-of-universal-health-coverage/Marcywinograd (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I'm not aware of artists being redirected to topic pages like this. The redirect serves no purpose. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the first part of this nomination a piece from a different nomination? Anyway, for this one, I vote delete because the artist is not mentioned at the target. --Micky (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lindquest

Deletion. The redirection is misleading. Tuestor (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous linear functional

They should point to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separation policy

Ambiguous redirect created by a blocked user called Composemi. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to actually be an unambiguous redirect (perhaps surprisingly) looking at these search results. — J947 [cont] 05:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because it's a generic concept with tons of other applications. For example, a military might have a policy on the process of separation (i.e. becoming civilians) for servicemen. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing as a generic term with no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if this particular policy showed up first in the search results, they still wouldn't necessarily determine the primary topic. Regards, SONIC678 14:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim A. Costa

Redirect created by a blocked user called Composemi. Also, Jim Acosta's full name is Abilio James Acosta. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJTJ

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. Thank you anti-deletionist J947. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by a blocked user called Composemi. Also, implausible initialism. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:20, 19 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.

NK (Korea)

Redirect created by a blocked user called Composemi. Also, unnecessary disambiguation, and we do not have SK (Korea). I predict that the inclusionist J947 will !vote to keep the redirect and encourage to create the South Korea counterpart. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary as disambiguation and unlikely as a search term. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely search term as well as redundant, it literally means 'North Korea (Korea)'. What's the point? Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I would have considered supporting keep if this redirect was created from a pagemove, is very old, or has a significant number of pageviews (like 30) from creation. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suny flagship

Delete as a controversial claim at best (the SUNY system doesn't have an official flagship institution; the four "university centers" all vie for this status and external organizations and individuals make this claim for one university or another). ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - SUNY has no official flagship. Some give the honor to Buffalo, but that's far from universally accepted. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if there's no flagship, this causes confusion by indicating that there is one. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls football

Ambiguous with South Florida Bulls football. Could also be a reasonable mistake for the Buffalo Bills. "Bulls" are too common of a mascot to point this to a single team. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ElKevbo (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've added a draft. It's a surprisingly uncommon mascot - I only found two other teams, one not mentioned in its article. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Narky Blert. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedirectName

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 Procedural keep. Malformed nom, closing. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action. ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 19 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.

SUNY football

Delete as both an unlikely search term for readers and an unlikely target (13 SUNY institutions have football teams, including 4 Division I teams, so it's very unclear why this one specific institution is highlighted). ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ambiguous. Multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Hog Farm (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, since multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York football

Delete as both an unlikely search term for readers and a very unlikely target ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could refer to football at any high school in New York, or any college in New York (go Syracuse Orange!), to the Jets, Giants, Bills (NFL), or to topics in association football, not American football. Hopelessly ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hog Farm. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Football in the United States. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sports in New York (state) (where Sports in New York redirects). Despite the name this does cover New York City and is appropriate whether the searcher means football, soccer or any other sport called "football". That article does cover New York City as well, but I'm about to add a hatnote to the more specific article too. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government transparency

Should point to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: J947 didn't call Senator2029 stupid. He called his argument for deletion stupid. That's not a personal attack. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all three to Open government, and tag the (highly plausible, regardless of its individual history) typo with {{R from typo}} as usual. --NYKevin 15:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: – Certainly I don't want to annoy readers, but none would be by deleting this obvious typo. This is because the new and improved search function now utilized by Wikipedia. Type in goverment and if the browser doesn't autocorrect the spelling, and the reader clicks enter, the resulting page will say Did you mean government? Anyone who has ever used a search engine before will be familiar with this, so it won't be an anoyance. This, coupled with the evidence the creator of the redirect would have requested deletion (and it would have been granted), is my rationale for deletion. We have the opportunity now to clean up a mistake, let's do it. There is not a reason to retain errors. Senator2029 “Talk” 23:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Senator2029: tell me – what is a positive result of the deletion of an unambiguous redirect? Remember that using the Wikipedia search bar is merely one way to find a redirect; the reader can get to a redirect from the URL bar or links as well. Why annoy readers to make them do more clicks when it can so eaisly be circumvented? Whether a redirect was accidentally created has no bearing on the current and future merits of it, given that redirects serve to help readers. The mere fact that it was created by accident showcases the plausibility of this redirect. Why delete? — J947 [cont] 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on what new targets these redirects should point to, but don't delete any of these redirects, especially Goverment Transparency. Though it only got 2 pageviews from 17 March to 10 June 2020, this is a plausible typo, and I agree with J947 that there's no benefit to be gained from deleting this redirect. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we not have a responsibility as editors to prune away cruft and clutter? Should we systematically create "goverment" redirects for every article that has "government" its name? What about "trensparency" redirects to "transparency"? Let's think of all the possible ways to misspell words, and create thousands of redirects? Shall we agree that is not in the best interest of our encyclopedia? This one (which should/would have been deleted initially, see above) has been presented for our consideration. I have made the case for deletion. Senator2029 “Talk” 21:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say this is cruft and clutter, but that does not address the point. Discussions to delete these redirects (which are evidently helpful) is much more cruft than the redirects themselves. What is the benefit to deleting helpful clutter Senator2029 (bear in mind WP:DWAP). — J947 [cont] 22:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to Open government. Reasonable error in Transparent Goverment, especially since at least in some American English dialects, the n in government is silent. At least one college has even made this mistake, see [1]. Hog Farm (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bag of holding

None of these are mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bag of holding, delete the rest. The bag of holding is one of the first results when searching 'bag' on Google meaning it is recognisable and is the only item in the list to have a lot of visits daily. The other items aren't as notable. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of them are covered in Wikipedia. I do see some leftover visits, usually connected to non-encyclopedic articles that used to exist. But we should remove Wikipedia from the search terms, so people can go to fan wikis and game guides. Jontesta (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not mentioned in WP, therefore any reader following these links will find nothing useful. Notes. (1) The F/M Girdle is an item in Baldur's Gate, but isn't mentioned there; nor should it be, it's a very minor game feature. (2) The Ring of Gaxx, mentioned in the target, has regeneration as one of its powers, but is not the same as a vanilla Ring of Regeneration. (3) The Bag of Holding is a generic item, and I think may be present in some non-D&D games; it should not be confused with Michael Holding's 14/149 at the Oval in 1976. Narky Blert (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bag of holding (and restore the missing content), delete the rest--agree with Captain Galaxy. A simple WP:BEFORE goes a long way. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L2 norm

A reader might also look for the norm on the function space. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more explicit in what you are proposing? Do you propose deletion, another redirect target, or yet another action? If you are referring to Lp spaces, do you have evidence the term "L2 norm" is used in that context? Or do you mean something else by referring to "the norm on the function space"?  --Lambiam 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lp space or to a section in this article. The case of Euclidean norm, is a special case of a L2 norm, but, when a mathematician see this phrase, he does not generally think of the Euclidean case, but most probably to the infinite dimensional case arising in functional analysis. So this redirect must be retargeted to Lp space, which is already the target of Lp norm, L1 space, etc. The other redirects with similar names must also be retargeted similarly. D.Lazard (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I won't oppose retargeting to Lp space, I wish to point out an issue. There is no suitable section to retarget to, but the lead does not even mention the term "Lp norm", so this will contravene WP:R#ASTONISH. This is made worse by the fact that where norms are discussed, they are called p-norms; the nomenclature of "Lp norm" is present but in a somewhat buried form.  --Lambiam 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_19&oldid=963452381"