Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2024.
Toyotathon
Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:REDLINK. From what I can tell, this is some sort of annual year-end sales event from the company. Sources can be found as to its existence (including Forbes); that being said, we don't currently have any information concerning this event in our Toyota article; nor has there been information on it since the June 2007 creation of this redirect. The fact that the name "Toyotathon" contains the name "Toyota" severely cuts the plausibility of someone searching "Toyotathon" and being happy with information on Toyota at large-- if they wanted information on Toyota at large, they'd search for Toyota. No, if they search "Toyotathon", they want information about that event, info we don't have. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
American Evacuation Day
- American Evacuation Day → Public holidays in Libya (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at target article. Only appears in the article for June 11 which is not a date listed anywhere in the target article. DrowssapSMM 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The Stand Off
- The Stand Off → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- The Stand Off (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This is not mentioned in the target article. Third party searches are not really helping matters to identify what subject these redirects are meant to refer either. On one hand, searching "The Stand Off Netflix" on some third party search engines returns results for miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse; however, I was not able to find any information stating that miniseries was known previously as "The Stand Off". In addition, there is also the subject at Standoff (film), made in 2016 ... but, there is also a different film which we apparently do not have an article for, which was also made in 2016, called "The Standoff" [1] starring Olivia Holt. Probably best to delete these unless a strong connection can be made between these redirects and at least one of the aforementioned subjects (or one that has yet to be created.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further research, seems the subject of these redirects is not the miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse. According to an article written a few years back [2], apparently, the subject is about a screenplay (probably intended to become a film) written by Mark Heyman, but in that article, there is no mention of a subject by the name of the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Mika Model (film)
- Mika Model (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Yet another potentially failed WP:CRYSTAL. Per third party search engines, seems as though Netflix bought the rights to produce a film based on the short story Mika Model around 2019, but then after that news ... nothing else really since on third party search engines. In addition, Mika Model is currently a redirects towards Paolo Bacigalupi, the author of the short story; However, the only mention of "Mika Model" on Paolo Bacigalupi is mentioning the short story exists, not even identifying what the short story is about, and there is no mention of a film by the name "Mika Model" there either. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Mimi from Rio (film)
- Mimi from Rio (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Mimi from Rio. (Unfortunately, I just noticed the existence of this redirect; if I had noticed it back then, I would have bundled with the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Lady Business
- Lady Business → Businessperson#Word use (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Besides the target section not existing, this does not seem like a plausible synonymous phrase for the target article's subject. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, there seems to be a mention of a television series named Lady Business which ran in either 2012 or 2013, a fanzine named Lady Business, an episode of Nurses (Canadian TV series), and reversing the words results in a band named Business Lady; however, the TV series and the fanzine do not have articles, and the band's name is the words reversed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It also sounds like it should be a euphemism for something, but I'm not sure what! Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Ryland Adams
- Ryland Adams → Shane Dawson#Personal life (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Following the relevant AfD discussion that was closed with a decision to Delete the Ryland Adams article, and rejecting the motion to create a Merge or Redirect link instead, a Redirect was nonetheless created, in direct violation of the decision. The Gnome (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Reading the discussion, while the ultimate result was outright deletion, nobody really made any headway towards actually refuting the idea of merging, and nobody brought up the idea of turning it into a redirect to existing material whatsoever. Either way, once such a deletion takes place, there's really nothing stopping someone from making a new article or redirect unless the thing gets salted, and equally, nothing but page protection can stop someone from grabbing text that used to be on a deleted page and adding it to another article as a posthumous "merge" (besides, well, how easy it is to GET said info)-- and not only should we only reach for the protection tools if a pattern develops of disruptive editing at a specific title/article, but also, said protection tools don't ever guarantee that something is locked in stone for all eternity, as someone can still always argue for a change somewhere.As for the actual redirect itself, it redirects to the current place on Wikipedia that we have information on the subject. I'd say it's a good redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are essentially re-judgint a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning. The closer did not bother with any alternative suggestions made, and they did not have to. A closure that does not address any and all suggestions made does not mean that contributors can use that as an excuse to bypass the decision. We might as well ignore all decisions outright. As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented, we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants. As to "arguments," we can only say, bring them on, by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I... what!?!?
re-judging a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning
- user:Liz closed this with simply "The result was Delete." There was no followup comment whatsoever-- no "We should also salt this", no "Don't make a redirect/merge", no "Don't recreate the article even if you find good sources", nothing. This can, and should, simply be interpreted as, "The article in its current state should not be on Wikipedia. If someone would like to take the resulting WP:REDLINK and do something else with it, feel free." That is a normal, valid method of interpreting an AfD result like this.
We might as well ignore all decisions outright.
- Oh no, feel free to do that. Decisions should never be flat ignored. However, that doesn't mean that they should be given more weight than necessary. The article as it stood was deleted. It's not here anymore. The "article" currently in its place is just a redirect.
As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented,...
- ...that's why we're here, this is a redirect in RFD--
...we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants.
- --And here's where you lose me entirely. Fear!? Miscreants?!?! Who the heck is holding a gun up to your head!?? This is just a redirect! ( 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I... what!?!?
- P.S. Note that the connection to the Target Article is simply a personal relationship between the two individuals one decidedly non-notable; a tenuous reason for keeping a name extant in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are essentially re-judgint a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning. The closer did not bother with any alternative suggestions made, and they did not have to. A closure that does not address any and all suggestions made does not mean that contributors can use that as an excuse to bypass the decision. We might as well ignore all decisions outright. As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented, we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants. As to "arguments," we can only say, bring them on, by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The AfD discussion did not "reject the motion to create a merge or redirect" it concluded to delete without any significant discussion of either - indeed the only comment that mentioned either option was supportive. There was a consensus that there should be a standalone article about this person, but we can and do have content about him on another article so we and readers gain by making it easy for that to find. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Kahru
article about Iran village (not a city like said!) called Gahru even doesn't mention "Kahru". And Kahru to be reserved to Estonian village Kahru, Rõuge Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Valinor Hills Station
- Valinor Hills Station → Ingenuity (helicopter)#End of mission (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There's no indication that this is referred to as a "station", either officially or unofficially, by anyone. I'm not sure whether or not a plain "Valinor Hills" redirect would be more suitable. It doesn't seem very useful, but it would make more sense at least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - As OA of the Valinor Hills Station WP:Redirect - this Redirect was made to support the listing of the final location of the Mars Ingenuity (helicopter) on the planet Mars as indicated at Ingenuity (helicopter)#End of mission, and on the "Mars Memorial Sites" template ({{Features and memorials on Mars}}) (and see below) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note -- I removed the (unsigned) template transclusion as clutter; anyone can click on the link themselves to see it. I know MOS:OL is about article content and not talk pages, but holy crap, please take it to heart, because it's really hard to find the one important link among your sea of useless ones (why in the world did you feel the need to link "wp:redirect"? Please put some thought into what you write). More to the point, none of what you said addresses my concern that "Station" specifically is unwarranted. If someone added it inappropriately to a template, the proper course would be to remove it from the template, not to add an erroneous redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Internet Phone Operating System
- Internet Phone Operating System → IOS (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Listing this separately from #Apple Internet Phone Operating System as beside similar issues with this being an unlikely search term, lacking a specific brand makes it more likely to cause confusion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - No clear target. The creator may have been under the impression that the "i" in iPhone is short for "internet", which it isn't - and from searching it doesn't look like this is a common mistake. Could arguably be retargeted to Mobile operating system, but that article isn't strictly related to the internet - there are mobile operating systems that don't have internet connectivity. BugGhost🪲👻 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mobile operating system. While it's true that not everything there relates to the internet, everything that this plausible search term could relate to is listed there (i.e. it's a redirect from a narrower term to a broader article) . Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget as per Thryduulf. He's right in that that's the best target we have (the only "internet phones" that can possibly have an operating system would have said operating systems listed there), and the fact that it's one less word than the one that starts with Apple helps a bit with my ability to believe its plausibility. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Apple Internet Phone Operating System
- Apple Internet Phone Operating System → IOS (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Implausible search term, this exact term has not been used in sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Unambiguous and plausible search term for someone who doesn't remember the actual name. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Week keep. May be potentially implausible, but the redirect is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep - the terms unabiguously indicate the user is trying to find iOS, but I doubt anyone will ever actually type it BugGhost🪲👻 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Extremely weak keep bordering on ambivalent. Steel, BugGhost, and Thryduulf are correct in that it is very unambiguous-- there's no world where this redirect goes anywhere other than IOS, and there's a WP:CHEAP based argument that that's enough to keep. That said, internet phone redirects to VoIP, not to smartphone or iPhone, and I don't think that should change-- I've never heard anyone refer to the iPhone as the "Apple Internet Phone", and given the iPhone's name is ultimately based on the name of the iMac, I'm not sure Apple had "Internet" in mind. (Although I will note that our article for iMac does note that one of the intended meanings for the "i-" is Internet, so... I'm not sure what to think anymore x3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Bush Derangement Syndrom
- Bush Derangement Syndrom → Public image of George W. Bush#Bush Derangement Syndrome neologism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The redirect pages Bush Derangement Syndrome and Bush derangement syndrome already exist, though when I type "Bush derangement" into the search bar, only the redirect with the misspelt title is listed, and I have to finish typing "syndrome" into the search bar in order for either of the correctly-spelt redirects to appear. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I added {{R from misspelling}} so if it is kept, it'll be categorized better. (I'm leaning weak keep since in general off-by-one misspellings can be useful although omitting trailing letters matter a bit less in general.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Drake LaRoche
- Drake LaRoche → Adam LaRoche#Personal life (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Redirects to an article where there is no mention of him. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hendrik Sal-Saller
has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Kristian Taska
- Kristian Taska → Taska Film (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Blagger
- Blagger → Social engineering (security)#Pretexting (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This was flagged up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed".
At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page.
The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the Pretext article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and move Blagger (video game) to it.
- The redirect made at least some sense at the time it was created. The article Pretext, as it appeared at the time, was about the general well-understood meaning of a "pretext"; a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. It had only a single paragraph describing the social engineering trick.
- Meanwhile, the article Social engineering (security), as it appeared at the time, in the section Pretexting, said "Pretexting..., also known in the UK as blagging". So that made at least some sense as a target (although even then, I think the video game article would have been a more appropriate target).
- The video game seems pretty clearly to be the primary use for "Blagger"; if the "blagging" text is re-added to the Social engineering (security) article (as it probably should, there seems to be sufficient documentation of that, e.g., [3] at the BBC), it can be dealt with by ordinary disambiguation (hatnote or a Blagger (disambiguation) page, as appropriate). TJRC (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The page mover / redirect creator Zxcvbnm was notified in the nomination, however I have just notified at the talk page as well. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguate "Blagging" is another term for social engineering (see here and here). If that isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated between social engineering (security) and the game, not have the game moved back here. That would be the height of folly when it could simply be re-added with a single sentence referenced to a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the page Blagger be a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ca talk to me! 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- Delete, move Blagger (video game) to it, then add a hatnote. "Blagging" is an informal term in UK that has similarities to social engineering, but it's not quite the same thing - it's just a phrase that sort of means "bullshitter", someone who can make up lies quickly - social engineers will blag, but not all blaggers are social engineers. For example most improv comedians are good blaggers, but that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. Seeing as Blagger (video game) exists, it should be the primary topic. BugGhost🪲👻 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The Big One (earthquake)
- The Big One (earthquake) → San Andreas Fault#The next .22Big One.22 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone feel like drafting a disambiguation page? It seems' nobody's willing to do it, hence delete by default. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: why would/should delete be the "default" choice? It's not a "disambiguation or delete" binary, there's a strong case to make that the San Andreas Fault is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term regardless of other uses. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- At the time I made that comment there was a consensus to disambiguate. If nobody is willing to write a disambiguation page then the closest way of implementing that agreement would be to delete and let search results perform the role of disambiguation. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: why would/should delete be the "default" choice? It's not a "disambiguation or delete" binary, there's a strong case to make that the San Andreas Fault is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term regardless of other uses. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice to disambiguation. I can't find any mentions of this term being used on Wikipedia to refer to anywhere other than California. If that changes then we can disambiguate but until then keeping is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf the sources at Marikina Valley Fault System use the term, but for some reason the "Big One" is not mentioned in the article itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That lack of mention in that article (and other articles) is exactly why I made the recommendation I did. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf the sources at Marikina Valley Fault System use the term, but for some reason the "Big One" is not mentioned in the article itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. "The Big One" is discussed at the current article but not in other articles. If there is discussion elsewhere, then we can consider other targets. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Chhota Bheem 1
- Chhota Bheem 1 → Chhota Bheem and the Curse of Damyaan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Chhota Bheem 5 → Chhota Bheem and the Curse of Damyaan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The redirects doesn't make any sense. M S Hassan (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @M S Hassan: I made these redirects (when I was going through the list of Indian film series), as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series.
- These, 1 and 5, should be targetted to the relevant articles (for the 2012 and 2024 film) respectively. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway
- 2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway → 2024 Sonsio Grand Prix (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Delete - Unplausible search target/cleanup after target article was initially created here (due to a newer editor being unaware they could overwrite the old redirect at the target). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Accurate and harmless, deletion wouldn't bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al
- Template:Bio coatrack → Template:Coatrack (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Bio-coatrack → Template:Coatrack (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Template:Bio coatrack → Template:Coatrack (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Merged into {{coatrack}} since [4]. Their names falsely imply that they will still display a more biology-related notice. In reality, they are just unused redirects. Only mentions are basically Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects and other lists. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- This should be completely uncontroversial, but from a purely clerical standpoint template redirects should be at RfD and not TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use
if only that would actually happen more here :) Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Moved the above from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 10#Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al as the correct venue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The template does not give any "bio" (biography? biology?) specific details. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Gonnym (the history says biography, but biology is equally plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
2022 Ohio abortion of a 10-year old
- 2022 Ohio abortion of a 10-year old → 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Two errors: 1) the abortion took place in Indiana, not Ohio. 2) The abortion was of a fetus, not a 10-year old. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep, per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Jax and the arguments presented by WhatamIdoing and Ivanvector at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio - essentially it's a plausible search term for someone who hasn't quite remembered all the details but wants to learn them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Why is
Keep per Jax
something to endorse? Jax 0677 always defends his redirects with the exact same boilerplate argument that doesn't say anything specific about the redirect in question. Yes, all redirects are cheap—everyone here knows that. But "keep per WP:CHEAP" could then apply to any redirect (which is illogical, many redirects should be deleted regardless if they're "cheap"), so we need more information. Finally, per WP:INAPPNOTE, pinging a couple of editors whose opinion matches your own in a similar discussion is inappropriate votestacking:Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions
. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- While most redirects are cheap, others have problems that outweigh that. This one does not.
- Re the pings, not my intention to vote stack but to attribute. I'll ping the other participants who haven't already commented here in that discussion as hopeful balance: @TNstingray, BD2412, Utopes, DrowssapSMM, TarnishedPath, StreetcarEnjoyer, Frank Anchor, Bwrs, and Pppery: (I've omitted Okmrman who has been blocked for disrupting XfDs and then socking) Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, WP:CHEAP doesn't say that most redirects are cheap, it's a blanket statement on redirects that they are cheap. It therefore adds nothing to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Why is
- Keep, as partial / short for similar redirects 2022 Ohio abortion, 2022 Ohio girl abortion case, 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case, 2022 abortion of a 10-year old from Ohio, etc. 2) is not an argument per common sense. Jay 💬 09:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- A plausible interpretation is that the abortion was performed on the 10-year-old, whose fetus was aborted. The title is grammatically awkward but not incomprehensible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments raised in the related previous discussions. When this also closes with strong consensus to keep, how about we impose a moratorium on RfDs for redirects to this title if the rationale is that they're "incorrect"? WP:RFD#K5 applies to technically erroneous titles that redirect readers to the right content, if there are not better reasons to delete (and an ideology that readers of an encyclopedia should have memorized all of the fine details of a subject before we let them find it is not a good reason, nor is expecting readers to be "educated" by this process). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I would strongly oppose such a moratorium. Yes, there are cases for an {{R from incorrect name}}, but only when they are common misnomers. The more errors that are in a term, the less plausible they become. This one has two errors in it, and I would argue that the errors make this redirect too implausible to keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one that strives to get things correct. We can overcome that when it is clear people will use that vehicle to get there, but I can't see the rationale for it here. Can you find sources that use this phrasing? Has there been reporting that show the abortion in Ohio? If sources don't use this, why would Wikipedia searchers use it? And even if in the off-chance someone does use it, the number of keywords here makes it super easy for the correct article to show up in the search results. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- People's search terms not confined those that appear in sources indexed by Google. The goal is to help people find the content they are looking for using the search terms they actually use, not just the ones we happen to approve of. I only had a vague recollection of this event (and only from seeing the RfDs) and couldn't have told you whether the travel was to or from Ohio. Our goal is not to be correct (c.f. WP:VNT), but to educate people. We don't educate people by making it harder to find the content they are looking for based on slightly misremembered and/or imprecise details. I would support Ivanvector's proposed moratorium on redirects to this target based solely on the rationale that the redirect is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument falls apart because of your false assumption that deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find the article in question. It would do no such thing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would mean someone using this title would have to navigate via search results which, depending on multiple factors, might be several clicks/taps away and are not guaranteed to list the desired article. That is unambiguously harder than going to the article directly. It would also reduce (by an unknowable amount) the likelihood of similar search terms returning the desired article in both internal and external search engines. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Someone using this title
won't be happening, but in case it does I have already shown the correct article appears first in search results. The search results will either directly appear or be one click away depending on how it's searched (not "several" as you claim). So no, it's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- Search results can be more than one click/tap away. I can't remember ottomh what specific method it is, but there is a case where one reaches a page that is two clicks/taps away from search results, which means that it is a minimum of three clicks before the person reaches the content they are looking for. So unless you are saying that two or three (or more) clicks/taps is not a significantly inferior user experience to zero clicks/taps then, yes this is a big deal.
- Despite your claims, it is impossible to guarantee what appears first in search results, especially as those search results are influenced by the existence of this redirect.
- Finally, you haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would mean someone using this title would have to navigate via search results which, depending on multiple factors, might be several clicks/taps away and are not guaranteed to list the desired article. That is unambiguously harder than going to the article directly. It would also reduce (by an unknowable amount) the likelihood of similar search terms returning the desired article in both internal and external search engines. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument falls apart because of your false assumption that deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find the article in question. It would do no such thing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- People's search terms not confined those that appear in sources indexed by Google. The goal is to help people find the content they are looking for using the search terms they actually use, not just the ones we happen to approve of. I only had a vague recollection of this event (and only from seeing the RfDs) and couldn't have told you whether the travel was to or from Ohio. Our goal is not to be correct (c.f. WP:VNT), but to educate people. We don't educate people by making it harder to find the content they are looking for based on slightly misremembered and/or imprecise details. I would support Ivanvector's proposed moratorium on redirects to this target based solely on the rationale that the redirect is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I would strongly oppose such a moratorium. Yes, there are cases for an {{R from incorrect name}}, but only when they are common misnomers. The more errors that are in a term, the less plausible they become. This one has two errors in it, and I would argue that the errors make this redirect too implausible to keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one that strives to get things correct. We can overcome that when it is clear people will use that vehicle to get there, but I can't see the rationale for it here. Can you find sources that use this phrasing? Has there been reporting that show the abortion in Ohio? If sources don't use this, why would Wikipedia searchers use it? And even if in the off-chance someone does use it, the number of keywords here makes it super easy for the correct article to show up in the search results. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per my comment in the previous discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- That the abortion didn't happen in Ohio is completely irrelevant to this redirect. The previous discussion was of a different redirect that did state "in Ohio" but even then it was not a justification for deletion as explained by multiple other commenters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is relevant because it makes the redirect incorrect. It's an important consideration because incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. They therefore require a bigger bar to justify keeping them over 'correct' redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- If people assuming incorrect redirects to correct articles was a thing that justified the deletion of redirects then we would be deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. Redirects from incorrect terms to correct articles educates people that they are wrong and what the correct is. In this case the redirect isn't even incorrect - it just states that the abortion is relevant to Ohio (which it was), but as has been explained multiple times we do not require readers to know the details of an article before being allowed to read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you're actually comprehending my arguments, that's not a logical jump to make from what I said.
You haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect
all but confirms it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- If I haven't understood your arguments then you need to try to explain them differently because I can't parse anything different from what you've said. You argue that
incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information.
but present no evidence for this stance that directly contradicts the reason for keeping any incorrect redirects: people who follow them learn from what they read that they are wrong and what is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- ...and what did I say both before and after the part that you quoted?
It's an important consideration
and that theyrequire a bigger bar to justify keeping them
. That is nowhere close to the leap you made todeleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect
. You either did not comprehend my argument, selectively parsed in your mind to suit your needs, or decided to construct a strawman to attack. To be clear: redirects from incorrect names are useful when they are common misnomers, and I would support keeping those. This redirect is, in my opinion, far below the threshold of plausibility to overcome the inherent harm that is present from it being incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...and what did I say both before and after the part that you quoted?
- If I haven't understood your arguments then you need to try to explain them differently because I can't parse anything different from what you've said. You argue that
- I don't think you're actually comprehending my arguments, that's not a logical jump to make from what I said.
- If people assuming incorrect redirects to correct articles was a thing that justified the deletion of redirects then we would be deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. Redirects from incorrect terms to correct articles educates people that they are wrong and what the correct is. In this case the redirect isn't even incorrect - it just states that the abortion is relevant to Ohio (which it was), but as has been explained multiple times we do not require readers to know the details of an article before being allowed to read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is relevant because it makes the redirect incorrect. It's an important consideration because incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. They therefore require a bigger bar to justify keeping them over 'correct' redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- That the abortion didn't happen in Ohio is completely irrelevant to this redirect. The previous discussion was of a different redirect that did state "in Ohio" but even then it was not a justification for deletion as explained by multiple other commenters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning keep. I generally agree that "Ohio" and "10-year old" are key details of the case as a whole for which a reader might search, and since there is no other article that might be ambiguous with this one, this is not preventing readers from finding what they almost certainly intend if they search for this specific title. The phrase "abortion of a 10-year old", while grammatically imperfect, seems very plausibly understood as referring to the age of the abortion recipient. BD2412 T 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Redirects are supposed to be plausible search terms, not statements of The Truth™. This is a plausible search term. Also, while grammar issues always interest me, this one isn't absolute. "A ten year old's abortion" = "Abortion of a ten year old". We could also complain that the hyphenation is wrong. (This form should not be hyphenated at all; if a noun followed it, there should be two hyphens, e.g., a ten-year-old rape victim.) But the main point is that this redirect will get readers to the right place, which is literally all we need from a redirect. I wouldn't have created it, but since it already exists, I don't think that deleting it is the right choice. Tavix, I encourage you to stop nominating redirects related this subject for deletion. It doesn't feel like it's helping either our content or our community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is the only the second redirect to this target I have nominated for deletion. The first one ended in "no consensus", and I feel this one is even worse with (in my opinion) more errors and more implausibility than the other one. I am not at all out of line to nominate two redirects I find harmful for further discussion. If there is another redirect to the same target that I feel is harmful and that I think consensus exists to delete, I absolutely will nominate it. Our content and our community are better off with implausible errors deleted, which mitigates any possibilities of our readers walking away misled. Not everyone reads through the articles, it's possible for someone to stumble across the redirect and assume it's correct without delving further. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Virgini
Would Virginia really be the primary topic of this misspelling? It's a phonetic misspelling of Virginie, and Virginis, Virginio and Virginity are also possibilities. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Based on googling, when this is a typo or misspelling it is (almost) always intended to be Virginia, but it is not always a mistake. In addition to being the Italian for "virgins" and the Latin dative singular for "maid, maiden, virgin" and similar meanings, it is a name of several people (most prominently Simone Virgini, an illustrator) and a shop in Majorca. Also prominent in search results are minni di virgini, a traditional Sicilian pastry (although as a partial title match I'm not advocating a retarget). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with the above BugGhost🪲👻 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Virgin (disambiguation). Not wholly implausible as a type, at least. BD2412 T 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Notcoin
- Notcoin → Telegram (software)#Business (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
not mentioned at target. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore this version and send to AfD. I had tagged the article as G4, since it was deleted at a prior AfD, but it turns out that the current article differs greatly from the deleted version. Regardless, it should be restored and taken to AfD once more to decide whether it should stay or not. CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. --Lenticel (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)