Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XXX8906 (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 25 May 2020 (→‎Adam Thorn (wildlife biologist)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2020.

Marhwini

Minor fictional concept, not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, and it probably shouldn't be. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Often will be a big surprise; any editor wanting to find Help:Pictures will probably know to prefix Wikipedia: to the search. This page will generally be quite helpful, so delete if no one finds an appropriate target. — J947 [cont] 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a strong opinion on this redirect, but I think I disagree with the core assertion that anyone trying to find the help page will know the correct prefix syntax. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free image

WP:ASTONISHing to users of this template, as the name could plausibly refer to any type of non-free image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about turn it instead to a normal template which will act like a "generic non-free image"? Or maybe a template that says that you should specify what kind of non-free image it is? Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greevillage, Pennsylvania

Delete, simple misspelling that is unlikely to be replicated. Star Garnet (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Prahlad balaji: Please fully understand the criterion before using it, you have misapplied R3 several times now: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[3] unless the moved page was also recently created. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Canada?

It's unlikely that anyone would type the question mark at the end, especially if that's not even the name of the episode. Redirect is barely ever visited. Also, only three edits to the redirect, which only proves how unhelpful it is.

If there was an actual article about Canadian Christmas, then it could have been redirected there, but there is no such article. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow for more discussion of the retarget proposal for the second redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 425

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Xiao En

Not mentioned at the target, searching online did not return results suggesting that these names are equivalent. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rarest element

Previously deleted after being listed at RfD but without drawing discussion, in addition to the argument raised there, I think we should consider deleting this redirect due to its ambiguity; it is the rarest naturally occurring element in the earth's crust, but synthetic elements are arguably more rare. FWIW, I wasn't able to find any sources that claim a definitive rarest element in the known universe. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pomeroy

First + middle name search terms are unlikely to begin with, and this redirect misspells the middle name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for a number of reasons. First, as Rosguill stated, it is a recently created misspelling misspelling and therefore qualifies for WP:R3 (not kidding this time around). Also, Rosguill stated that it is an unlikely search term, and that is why (a) it's only getting a meager 5 pageviews, and (b) only three pages link to it, all of which are not even articles. They are the creator's talkpage, this RfD, and the WP:RfD page. Nothing ever linked to the page before Rosguill brought it to RfD. So thank you, Rosguill, for bringing this useless and misspelt clutter to attention. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Goldberg (WMD)

Seems like an unhelpful disambiguator. The subject does appear to have some relation to WMDs, as Iran and weapons of mass destruction is listed as a See also link, but this connection is not explained in the article text. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets seem to imply that Richard Goldberg is himself a WMD. Delete as it's an incorrect disambiguation regardless if Goldberg is connected to WMDs in some way. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilanggo

Not mentioned at the target. Delete unless a duly sourced mention or some other justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TLOB


I wasn't able to find any instances of RS referring to the target this way, and did end up with a lot of unrelated search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warworld (Transformers)

Found since it points to a WP:Broken section anchor, but this is not mentioned at the current target or any of its prior targets. -- 2pou (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Jammu and Kashmir is also a former state 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proms

Retarget to Prom (disambiguation) per WP:PLURALPT similar to the fact that Cars redirects to Car despite the fact that the film has nearly as many views, in this case Prom more than double views (18,680) than The Proms (9,307)[[1]]. See similar outcomes of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#Doors (and Wishes below) so there might even be a case to redirect to Prom but the DAB page probably makes most sense. There was a failed RM at Talk:The Proms#Requested move 17 April 2020. I have no objection in moving The Proms to something like Proms (UK) but there shouldn't be a primary topic for the plural per WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW. There are still a number of links to Proms which I can't determine even though I fixed most of them. Like Cars (film) The Proms also derives the general dance meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom, but make Prom the disambig page itself, since "Prom" as a disambig page would clearly not be a primary topic. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that while most people would indeed be typing just "Prom" to find the general concept surely some of the people looking for the BBC Proms would type "The Proms" or "BBC Proms". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good redirect, I'd never type "The Proms" when searching, nor "BBC proms". Their name is "Proms", not "The Proms", and we should have moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concert series is by far the primary topic for the plural form "Proms". No-one would type the plural if they were looking for the school dance, or any other topic on the disambiguation page. But people are very likely to type "Proms" if they are looking for the concerts, as that is their commonly used name, and this holds throughout the world - although UK-based they are an internationally known series, with musicians from around the world taking part. WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW thus supports the present redirect. And the quoted viewing figures are irrelevant - they tell us which pages people looked at but not what they typed in the search box to get there. I would add that there are many links on other pages that make use of this redirect as it has been in place and stable for many years. Changing the redirect would disrupt these existing links as well as disadvantaging users looking for the concert series. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same logic the film is by far primary for "Cars" yet not only does Cars not go to the film it goes to Car. Cars (film) gets 74,315 while Car only gets 56,728![[2]] yet its the textbook example of a WP:PLURALPT. Why on earth would we make The Proms primary when it gets less than half the views of prom(s). WORLDWIDEVIEW generally supports going to the general meaning which Prom is. Perhaps if anything that article is a WP:Broad concept article for The Proms which we could discuss there. But at minimum there is no primary topic. The links aren't a problem, they can be fixed if you know the meaning but even after doing external searches I couldn't determine if the links were intended for proms in general or the BBC Proms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly WP:PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and so we cannot use "Car"/"Cars" as a template for how we deal with "Prom"/"Proms". Secondly, as I have already said in my comment above, the page views you quote are not relevant because they don't tell us what people typed to find the page. I don't think there is any doubt that the concert series is the primary topic for "Proms" (plural), and that is what people are most likely to type in the search box. They are much less likely to search for "BBC Proms", and very unlikely to type "The Proms" as that name seems to be a Wikipedia invention - it is not used on the Proms website or publications. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and in this case the points for treating proms in general seems stronger than for cars since (1) the views for BBC Proms are less than half of proms in general, (2) BBC Proms has other terms it could be search for with namely "The Proms" and "BBC Proms" even if "Proms" alone is still the most common and (3) as I noted proms in general could probably be used as a broad-concept article for the BBC Proms since its about a type of proms while the film could probably only be mentioned in an "in popular culture" section while it would probably be possible to mention the BBC Proms at in the lead of the Prom article. So indeed based on my last point the views for BBC actually adds rather that detracts for the general meaning which indeed means you could actually argue that the plural should point to the general meaning instead. Going back to PLURALPT prom(s) seems to be a count noun similar to chair(s) and car(s) in that its commonly used in both the singular (1 car) and the plural (many cars), isn't this the case with prom(s), I don't know since I've never heard of either the general term or the BBC Proms but the article seems to indicate it is a count noun. There are also many cases where although the singular has a primary topic the plural goes to a DAB (like Walls) which is what I'm suggesting here but there are only a few cases where it goes to a different topic (like Windows). In many cases where a "plural" goes to a DAB (like Papers) or another article (like Blues) is actually because the article located at the "singular" is a mass noun meaning it doesn't really have a plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see there might be an argument to create a broad-concept article about Proms concerts in general, covering topics such as the Hallé Proms (Manchester), the BSO Proms (Bournemouth) and the RSNO Proms (Glasgow and other Scottish cities), but this would not displace the BBC Proms as the primary topic for the term "Proms". Note that at the moment these other Proms seasons are not even mentioned on the pages about their host orchestras. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep this excellent and useful redirect, per Gerda Arendt and 92.40.53.205 above.--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per others, a search for plural "Proms" is most likely to be for the globally known concerts, and as regards the OPs other suggestions "The Proms" is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the global general article seems a clear primary topic if anything. Crouch, Swale (talk)
  • Keep as a primary topic redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Thorn (wildlife biologist)

This page was redirected several days ago. Before the page was redirected, the only contents were "Adam Thorn is a wildlife biologist who is notable for appearing in the History channel television series Kings of Pain." Considering that Kings of Pain is the article that this redirects to, I think this redirect might as well be deleted due to the fact that the the information provided by the redirect doesn't provide any information that isn't already provided by the Kings of Pain article. XXX8906 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The intent retaining the redirect is that if someone types Adam Thorn into the search box, this will point them to the information being sought. Without the redirect, you'd already have to know Kings of Pain relates the the Adam Thorn you might be looking for. I did notice that you are the original creator of the page when an article, so I'm overall neutral. -2pou (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. XXX8906 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lucia at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Not mentioned on target page (or Saint Lucia at the Summer Olympics). I'm not sure if there is sufficient content to start the article (a quick google search suggests several hopefuls but no-body qualified) but this page definently should not retarget to 2020 Summer Olympics where Saint Lucia isn't even mentioned
SSSB (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

Retarget to encyclopedic content at Wikipedia#Policies and laws. — J947 [cont] 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trigintaduonion

No mention at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Australian Iinstitute of Architects Gold Medal

As per an earliier diiscussiion wiith an "Iirish" rediirect, Ii'm not sure how plausiible thiis typo of "institute" iis (thiis rediirect now haviing much fewer pageviiews compared to iits correctly spelled counterpart Royal Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medal, whiich iis worth keepiing because iit's the offiiciial name of the iinstiitute siince the pagemove iin 2006 to the correct spelliing). Regards, SONIIC678 03:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working Pearl

Delete. The only result Google gives me is a poorly-maintained, unsourced, fan-run wiki claiming it was an original title for the episode. I've heard of this rumor before but have never found any proof for it. Scrooge200 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your rationale. By keeping this redirect no-one is claiming that the claim is true, but if, as the nominator suggests, they've "heard of this rumor before" then isn't it plausible that someone would think that's what the episode was called and so search for it and then thanks to the redirect find what they were looking for? A7V2 (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I've only heard it on other wikis, always without a source. This episode is officially called Bossy Boots and it has a title card before the episode, and is called such on online streaming services and TV listings, so I think most people are going to be searching for Bossy Boots instead of Working Pearl. Scrooge200 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history of Bossy Boots it looks like Wikipedia was one of the first places where this appeared back in 2006. And "most people are going to be searching for" is not a reason to delete a redirect. If it was, then that would be 99% of redirects deleted. I've never heard of this before, but certainly just taking a quick look at it it appears to be something which may or may not be true, but definitely is something that some people believe to be true, and so potentially they will search for it (and if it is true that some broadcasters incorrectly used this name then that's what they would search for). WP:RFD reason for not deleting number 5 is "Someone finds them useful". It's definitely plausible that someone might find this useful. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_21&oldid=958726454"