Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 4

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tavix (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 5 April 2024 (β†’β€ŽπŸ“΅: ret). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2024.

Format specifiers

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Bengali language

Implausible search term. But even if allowed to stand, it should be retargeted to Bengal. See also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28#Land of independent Bengalis. Nickps (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. Is this meant to refer to the language spoken in the land of the Bengali, or to the land where the Bengali language is spoken? Both are implausible, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a plausible search term if it was the literal meaning of "Bangladesh" but according to Bangladesh#Etymology the country name means "Land of Bengal" or "Country of Bengal". Names of Bengal#Terminology in detail gives the meaning of "Bangladesh" as "Bengali country", which is closer but per the rest of that section not "Land of Bengali language". Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the language is not exclusive to the target, though the language may have originated at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pensiero

I cannot figure it out the purpose of this redirect. Pensiero is the Italian word for thought, and as an Italian I have never heard of it in association with sketching/drawing, nor Wiktionary mentions anything related to sketching/drawing (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pensiero). "Pensiero" is not mentioned in the target page and a search for "drawing" + "pensiero" on Google only gives false positives. Cavarrone 15:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. @Cavarrone: "pensiero" + sketch yields results, see this, or this. Primo pensiero seems to mean very rough sketch. I don't know any Italian, nor am I trained in the arts, so I could be mistaken. I would vote keep if this RfD was for primo pensiero. πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡²JayCubby✑ please edit my user page! Talk 20:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the explaination, side note in Italian primo pensiero means first thought / first idea / early conceptualization, it is not really a synonimous of "sketch" but rather a definition of it and is not specifically related to art or drawing (eg. look at "primo pensiero" search results on it.wikipedia), even if can certainly be used in that context. Cavarrone 21:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh! πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡²JayCubby✑ please edit my user page! Talk 23:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pensiero (song) exists, so if this closes as delete that should probably be moved to the base title (unless there's some other topic by the same name which needs disambiguation). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda from Bristol

Brenda from Bristol is a woman who is the star of a viral video and subsequent meme ("You're joking, not another one") related to the 2017 UK general election [1] but there is no mention of her in the article, nor was there when the redirect was created in September 2020 (WikiBlame isn't working so I don't know if she or the video/meme has ever been mentioned) so the redirect is unhelpful. I've not found any mention elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superdome (Stadium)

I believe this to be an ambiguous term and, as such, it should be redirected to Superdome, where there are four stadiums that go by/have gone by this name. Bringing this here due to a dispute on the target with Abhiramakella. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burswood Dome and the Sydney SuperDome are arenas, not stadiums. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This redirect should be kept to Caesars Superdome because that is the only stadium in which that was nicknamed "Superdome". Abhiramakella (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This in no way addresses why you capitalized the disambiguator unnecessarily, and then apparently created the redirect with proper disambiguation capitalization, Superdome (stadium), about a month later. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization errors happen often. Just because a page name has an incorrect way of capitalization does not mean that it should not be redirected to a page. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences, and without this redirect, the search function would treat a query for "Superdome (Stadium)" as if it were a query for "Superdome (stadium)" and redirect appropriately. Lunamann πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using incorrect subject capitalization on disambiguators can be problematic, considering that means the incorrectly-capitalized title can be linked (which is bad in the case of disambiguators since it doesn't hint to the editor that a correction needs to be made to the title), and it can obscure other functionalities in Wikipedia, such as assessing page views of a redirects' usage. I think Lunamann hit the nail on the head there: typing a differently-capitalized title in the search function will result in going to the closest capitalization match, which would be "Superdome (stadium)" if the nominated redirect is deleted and can validate deleting the nominated redirect over keeping it, considering all else I have stated. (Not sure if this is enough for me to advocate changing WP:RDAB to accommodate this, but it sure is leading me that direction.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the exception of the fact redirects not including the word "disambiguation" in the title don't interfere with disambiguation link fixes the same principals apply. In the case of Ø (Disambiguation) the title is a name not a qualifier so RDAB wouldn't apply even if it was a redirect to an article. 501(c)(3) is an example or what would not be an RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe those examples should be included in RDAB, as examples of what NOT to delete. Lunamann πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ The Moooooooniest (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 and Lunamann: Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences this is only true for some methods of finding Wikipedia content and cannot be relied on. The points about making it harder to use some tools are irrelevant - firstly we should always prioritise readers over editors and that means we fix our tools to work with the encyclopaedia rather than "fixing" the encyclopaedia (usually when it's not actually broken) to work with our tools; secondly if it were relevant it would be a reason to delete every redirect that differs only in capitalisation. When plausible miscapitalisations occur outside parentheses we keep the redirect because we recognise how valuable they are to readers, when plausible miscapitalisations occur inside parentheses we should do the same because they are equally valuable to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because readers are unlikely to look for a title with incorrect capitalizations. Readers qualifying titles like Wikipedia will expect them to be the way we correctly title things. WP:UNNATURAL notes i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers do look for titles with incorrect capitalisations - that's why we have Category:Redirects from miscapitalizations and nobody has ever provided any evidence that they distinguish between words inside and outside of parentheses. The fact that these redirects keep getting created is yet more evidence that people do arrive here naturally and so do benefit from their existence. Also note that what you quote is referring to things like missing parentheses not capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB makes reference to "(Disambiguation)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB is an essay expressing opinions that reflect very varying levels of consensus for it's disparate points. On this point it is harmfully wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...One more place where WP:COSTLY is itself costly, huh? I've already written a counterargument piece regarding WP:PANDORA lol, am waiting on an opportunity to use it π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that there is a limit to redirects being cheap and creating them for incorrectly capitalized qualifiers crosses the line of not being useful while creating clutter since deleting them enables search to correct the capitalization and keeping/maintaining such redirects though not particularly costly is reduced by not having such redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is another one of those discussions in which a convention has apparently been established (in this case to delete redirects with capitalized disambiguators) without any coherent rationale, and has then been challenged. Well, that means the convention must go, lest circular reasoning prevail over logic. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hey man im josh: While the nomination was about ambiguity, and not capitalization, and the discussion turned towards the capitalization nuances, the redirect creator went ahead and changed the target of the lowercase Superdome (stadium) to Caesars Superdome as well. If your concern with ambiguity still stands, do you want to bundle that to this nomination? Jay πŸ’¬ 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I do think it makes sense to bundle the two in a discussion. I hadn't actually realized an "issue" about the capitalization until the conversation went in that direction. I think the spirit of my nomination, and the concerns stated, still stand if the other user chooses to try to change the target without discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling in Superdome (stadium). I suggest pivoting the discussion to the redirects' targets rather than general arguments about the capitalization of disambiguators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shōgun (upcoming miniseries)

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Low page views, target released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. 59 page views in the last 30 days is not even remotely "low page views". This is a ridiculously inappropriate nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasn't hit my "10+/day average over the last 30 days" bar. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in what universe is inconveniencing nine users per day remotely appropriate!? One a day on average is more than enough empirical evidence of use to demonstrate that deletion would cause harm. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And obviously, and repeatedly, my stance is not nearly as strict as yours, and I see the existence of the redirect as harmful due to the now erroneous disambiguator. (It's getting to a point where we should probably just have some long, drawn out philosophical conversation on Wikipedia and then link to that conversation for other participants and closers alike.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your stance is different, but I fundamentally disagree with it. It is harmful to readers (and thus harmful to the encyclopaedia) to be left with search results (or sometimes be several clicks away from search results) that may or may not include the article they are looking for than to be taken directly to the content they want to read, which informs them that it is no longer upcoming. The sole purpose of redirects is to help readers, and we should not be deleting them until it is clear they have stopped helping people. How you can look at empirical evidence of a redirect helping multiple people almost every day and declare it appropriate to delete is both incomprehensible and offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very concerned at all these "per nom" comments when the nomination is factually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, let this one cook for a bit. In addition, and in reply to Thryduulf's concern: I rarely see such being brought up in RfD (we seem to quite blatantly flout this one, actually), but teeeeechnically we're not supposed to give "per nom" comments much if any weight, as per WP:PERNOM. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per nom" !votes are completely fine when the nomination is correct, relevant and there are no other factors identified so at RfD we rightly ignore that part of the essay. The votes are not fine when there are problems with the nomination (as in this example). Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redstar0005 talk to me! 22:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. - Presidentman talk Β· contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can delete it in the future when the page views get lower. I don't think a simple incorrect title of "upcoming" is particularly harmful when as soon as you arrive at the destination it is clear it's been released. Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Expectations (upcoming TV series)

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Goal Wins (upcoming film)

Delete per WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target article's subject was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Most of the recent pageviews are likely due to the RfD discussion. Before nomination, there were very few. - Presidentman talk Β· contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favorability

I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --MikutoH talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps Dabify? π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personality trait of agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something. Jcbutler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability. Jcbutler (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert Spaces and Fourier analysis

WP:XY; but possibly retarget to Fourier analysis. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XY Johnjbarton (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of these redirects has a history, while the other is a redirect left upon a move (and can harmlessly be deleted without much further discussion). So they aren't exactly the same. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments before bundling
Delete WP:XY Johnjbarton (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) β€”Β Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk β€’ contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled these discussions, as the comments were essentially identical. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert this edit without notifying me. β€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal

Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal (current redirect target) is the correct spelling as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhattiprolu_mandal . So the page and its redirect need to be swapped. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

πŸ“΅

I'm going to mark this for speedy deletion since there were suggestions in the original deletion discussion to redirect it to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, which quickly got put down but someone still redirected it here anyways. I'm just gonna make this discussion to see if the discussion still holds up since it happened all the way back in 2015. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_6#%F0%9F%93%B5 Okmrman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of that discussion in August 2015 this was a redirect to Mobile phones and driving safety, the present target was considered but rejected and it closed with a consensus to delete. The present iteration was created in February 2016, but as it has a different target (and things might have changed in 9 years) I've declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, disambig or write a broad concept article. There should be a disambig or broad concept article about prohibition/restriction and similar of mobile phone use. In addition to the current target, such is discussed (in various contexts) at Mobile phone jammer, Mobile phones in prisons, Mobile phones on aircraft, Mobile phone use in schools, Mobile phones and driving safety, Radio quiet zone and possibly others. In the absence of such a page, then we should target where the character is mentioned. There are three such pages but No symbol#Unicode and fonts is by far the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are so many different ways to interpret this emoji, the majority of readers are going to be disappointed. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile phone#Use. That section has subsections on the prohibition/restriction of mobile phones in various contexts, such as while driving, while walking and in schools. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all my rage

Lyric not mentioned in page (we've had a lot of these at RfD recently). Rusalkii (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? This is one of those "people might not know the title of the song, but they remember the chorus" songs, partially because it's a song whose title never shows up in the lyrics. Given the second half of the chorus line ("rat in a cage") DOES show up naturally in the article, I can see the article being rewritten to fit the full line in ("Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage"). In addition, starting the search with "Despite all my rage..." would arguably be more plausible of a search than simply searching for the ending four words of the line (..."rat in a cage"). π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, βœ—plicit 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_4&oldid=1217454681"