Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neonchameleon (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 31 December 2022 (→‎Russian invasion of Ukraine: Keep - not an appropriate AfD referral as they should point somewhere). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

December 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 26, 2022.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Given that recent consensus decided that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", I don't think it makes sense that that term should redirect there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I did not vote! in the recent RM though I did make a general comment regarding WP:DETCON and WP:NHC and that WP:AT was the prevailing WP:P&G) The close did not find that that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary topic was only specifically raised by the Nom and two others (who had opposing views). Editors gave opinions regarding other invasions but these were not made within the context of WP:P&G or evidence but tended to argue opinions. IMHO (and quoting from WP:NHC, most arguments offered were irrelevant and flatly contradict established policy - specifically WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT (a policy), to which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a guideline) specifically defers. WP:TITLEDAB states: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The policy is based on there being an actual and not a perceived or potential conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict between Russian invasion of Ukraine and any other Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, we are specifically told to use only as much additional detail as necessary. Because there is no actual conflict in titles, preceding with year (eg 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) flatly contradict[s] established policy. I am not here to relitigate the RM but the prevailing policy is directly related to this discussion. Keeping that in mind, what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and what is the evidence? Of the invasions/occupations listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine immediately post the Russian revolution, average daily page views are less than 40 (and typically much less).[1][2][3][4] Looking at the two other events listed under the Russo-Ukrainian War and the long term results from before the 2022 invasion: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has about 2,000 page views per day;[5] and, War in Donbas has about 2,500.[6] WP:RECENTISM was raised during the RM in that the 2022 invasion overshadows earlier events. After a year, average daily page views are tending to flatten at somewhere between 40,000-50,000. At an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the other two relatively recent events, that is a lot of recentism to overcome. What weight do we give recentism? That can only be considered by comparison of the global ramifications and consequently, how these will be viewed comparatively in the future once the dust has settled. While WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL ... The global reaction and direct global ramifications (particularly economic), demonstratively far exceed the other events - even if this is a somewhat qualitative metric. IMHO, the weight to be given recentism is not so significant to change the result from present evidence. Even for these other events that may be termed invasions, this is not part of their WP:COMMONNAME, given common name is the primary criteria for determining an article title. Bottom line: actual evidence assessed against the prevailing WP:P&G supports keeping this as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic (I raised the RM, after all)—this RfD is because of the outcome: most !votes to oppose in the RM cited potential confusion with other invasions of Ukraine (the 2014 invasion of Crimea in particular). As I directly asked for comments about whether it was the primary topic by requesting a move, and people seemed to agree that it was not the primary topic,[a] I went forward with the RfD. I don't really think this RfD should happen, but I do think that given the outcome of the RM, it would be silly not to bring up the redirect, as it seems to go against the consensus just established: that a large portion of people looking for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" would be brought to a page that differs from what they were looking for. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DecafPotato, I know where you stand but the problem with the argument you would italicise is that it is made without evidence to support such an assertion. And if a reader does happen to be looking for something else, that is why we have a dab hat note at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list article, as proposed. The delegation of this name to the February 24th invasion is WP:RECENTISM. An encyclopedic point of view of history keeps in mind that there were Russian invasions of Ukraine in 1659, 1708, 1775, 1918, 1919 (2×), 1920, 2014, and 2015. —Michael Z. 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (albeit some comments just said that there were other invasions of Ukraine, that the invasion of Crimea and called me a Russian propagandist for suggesting that Crimea is rightfully Russian (I did not suggest that) and completely ignored things like the example of Invasion of Poland as the primary topic, but I digress, and then swarms of random redlink accounts with no comment as to their position)

DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - AfD is not the place to discuss redirects that should at least point somewhere. They should probably all point at a disambiguation page for the Russian invasions (and I support that redirect) but deletion is entirely inappropriate here Neonchameleon (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of electricity

Delete It makes no sense. --2001:16A2:E6DE:D202:C018:C01:B021:8328 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Front hole

Target article does not use this term. Would suggest instead targeting Transgender sexuality § Transgender men 2, which does. (The one issue I see with this is that the vagina / front hole is not only relevant in the context of sexuality, but the solution to that would be to break Anatomical terminology among transgender people out into its own article, which could be done at a later date; this could then be summarily retargeted.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking 2.0

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. However, the target article does mention Web 2.0 a few times, and it seems it may be somewhat synonymous to the redirect, so possibly weak retarget to Web 2.0, but "weak" since the redirect technically isn't mentioned there either, thus delete world probably be the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macaulay Culkon

Not mentioned either at the current target or the original target Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social network creation

Due to the use of the word "creation" in this redirect, it may not be clear what this redirect is meant to refer. There is the section Social network#History this discusses how the concept of "social network" began, but there is also the section Social networking service#History with similar information. Given the vagueness and lack of clarity about what this redirect is meant to refer (possibly creating a new social network(ing service)?), I think delete is the best route to take to allow search results to better serve readers. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} that was an article for over a year from 2007 to 2008, but then was subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could also mean installing the service. Probably delete due to bad style, ambigious name. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic sociability

Not mentioned in target or Social network, leaving the connection between the redirect and either of the respective targets unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, I recommend Mediated communication instead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digix

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwallet

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be possible to add a mention to Cryptocurrency wallet and retarget the current redirect there. ([7]) Carpimaps (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to Cryptocurrency wallet yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taihoku County

Taipei County was established after Japanese rule so the Japanese pronunciation Taihoku is not in its native language. (In Japanese era it was part of Taihoku Prefecture instead of Taihoku County.) Konno Yumeto 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a plausible enough search term, but I'm neutral between keeping at current target which I think is more likely to explain the confusion, and retargeting to Taihoku Prefecture which is perhaps more likely what someone searching this is actually looking for (noting of course that it is linked in the relevant section of the current target). A7V2 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and Taihoku Prefecture talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Royalty Tour (Mary J. Blige and Nas Tour)

This is an WP:XY issue, although they are billed co-headliners of the tour, why the article is BLARed without discussing the outcome. Either the issue as you get the WP:PT, the harder you get, the way you've pass or fail the NTOUR which they've been co-headliners. I'm open to restore article and bring this to AFD, so the discussion could be broadened. I will tag Dylanvt, the BLARrer to formally speak out on BLARring the co-headlining tour and TartarTorte to apply the similar opinion on how co-headliners are redirected to the artist page without discussing to RFD 2600:1700:9BF3:220:88E:619E:9003:4C6E (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where it should be redirected, but the article certainly doesn't pass WP:NTOUR. I'm more or less neutral about what to do with it as long as it's not maintained as a standalone article. Wikipedia has a big (though I'll admit not crucial) problem with non-notable concert tour articles. Dylanvt (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse term

The word "term" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 The section of "A lightwarp is a technique of which an object in the geometrical world refracts light based on the direction and intensity of the light. The light is then warped using an ambient diffuse term with a range of the color spectrum." It is mentioned in the article. Des Vallee (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough it is. I was originally just thinking of retargeting this redirect to Computer graphics lighting#Lightwarp after discovering it is mentioned: However, it doesn't seem really clear that the phrase "diffuse term" is defined very well in the target article, meaning it could have a definition exclusive of what is already present in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refined oil

Both petroleum oil and vegetable oil can be refined, so it shouldn't be assumed the "oil" refers to one or the other. Oil covers all types, but only mentions refining in passing. Oil refinery is only about petroleum, but that seems OK to me. Not sure about these six redirects though. MB 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eashoa

No mention at the target. It seems to be a modern reconstruction attempting at pronouncing "Jesus" as it was pronounced back in the 1st century. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porridge (TV series)

Ambiguous; see Porridge (2016 TV series). Retarget to Porridge (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Very clear primary redirect. Far more significant than the later sequel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 2019 RM determined that partial disambiguation should not be used for this series (although I note that you opposed that in the discussion.) 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about moving the article! We're talking about a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Porridge (TV series) and Porridge (1974 TV series) are the same article, there's no reason to keep the excessive disambiguation in the title. However, the RM determined that the title should be disambiguated. 162 etc. (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roberts (musician)

Musician-to-band redirect for a musician not named in the band's article to provide any context for why he redirects there. To be fair, at the time this was created his name was in the article with a claim that he was a very shortlived early member when the band was first formed but left before the band had actually attained any notability -- but that was later removed as unsourced and unsourceable, and the name has never returned to the article since. So there's no point in retaining this if its original purpose is impossible for us to verify. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_26&oldid=1130616399"