Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 4, 2022.

Cereal eating by humans

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12#Cereal eating by humans

U k

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12#U k

Too bee too tee dot org

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The other redirect needs to be nominated separately. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this? It seems highly unlikely that anyone would type in this exact string of characters. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...the meme has fallen out of popularity within the 2b2t community. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alongside the second redirect. SWinxy (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not needed. Gusfriend (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

G.I. Jada

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline unnecessary WP:BLP violation. I don't think this phrase in this exact wording was ever said during the incident. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Marie Rose Abad

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(re)Nominating the redirect for deletion, along with the 3000+ 2900+ redirects to List of victims of the September 11 attacks per the discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2022_July_12 and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#WP:MEATBOT_and_Guarapiranga. Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete firstly created by an unapproved automated process. Second listing all the victims like this is undue emphasis on their death, and just allowing a text search will allow a more wholesome view of any information on these people's lives. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I only created redirects for those people that didn't already have an article to their name, of course. Thus, there is no information to their lives on WP, other than that they were killed in a notable event. That's not undue emphasis; that's just all that's notable about them. My thinking in creating them was that searching for their name and being directed to the List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks was a worthwhile improvement to Wikipedia.
    2. That their creation required prior approval is neither clear in the policy, which applies specifically to content pages, and links to its original discussion in which redirects were explicitly excluded, nor is it consensual (as was evident in the discussion at ANI).
    3. What's in discussion here is whether redirects to non-notable entries in notable lists are to be kept or deleted from WP, regardless of how they're created. If they're to be kept, even if, for any reason, a (semi-)automated process is ruled out, similar redirects could be manually created to the names of victims of other smaller massacres. If they're to be deleted, then currently existing redirects to the names of non-notable people in notable lists—e.g. Mary McKinney, Grace Nelsen Jones, Mary Margaret Smith, Margaret Skeete—ought equally to be deleted. Personally, I don't think redirects to non-notable entries in notable lists are, nor should they be, ruled out by WP:POLICY, but if they are, then the policy ought to be applied consistently across the board.
      — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three additional thoughts. 1) As BilledMammal said in the Deletion Review, the redirects might be confusing to readers who are searching for other individuals without Wikipedia pages: "Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate." There is also an open question about how the redirects might affect Google results. 2) Because the names are included in the list, they can easily be searched (and indexed). Thus, the "need" for a redirect is minimal. 3) WP:OSE. --Enos733 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Easily solved with a dab page, no? Say:
          — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks is a legitimate list article because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the September 11 attacks (which discussed it at a previous title) allowed it to be kept, and therefore any redirect to a list entry is acceptable, in the same way as any {{R to list entry}}. The way those redirects were created is neither here nor there if each redirect points to the article where the text of that redirect is a list entry. (Personally I would not have supported keeping the list article, but it is kept). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid {{R from list entry}}, but care should be taken to resolve ambiguities before restoring the rest of the redirects. That seems to be where a lot of the angst is coming from, because this has to be done case-by-case instead of via a mass creation bot. Other arguments I see are actually arguments against the list itself, but since the list has been kept that's a bit moot now. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    R from list entry is just the procedure for linking a redirect of a non-notable subject to a list, not whether the redirect should be created. I continue to assert that these redirects will cause confusion (see WP:R#DELETE) and many of the names on the lists are common names (or are listed with their middle name, which reduces their utility). As one example, there are two Denis Buckley's with wikipedia pages - and a redirect of "Dennis Buckley" to the list of fatal victims is problematic. If this is kept, yes, care will be needed to create redirects on a case-by-case basis, but we will be left with the situation where some victims will have redirects, and others will not, leading to a sub-optimum solution. Again, searching for the name will always lead readers to the article, even without a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As one example, there are two Denis Buckley's with wikipedia pages - and a redirect of "Dennis Buckley" to the list of fatal victims is problematic.
    Easily solved with a dab page, no? E.g.:
    Incidentally to this example, I didn't create a redirect to Dennis Buckley bc one already existed to the USS Dennis J. Buckley (DD-808), indicating a dab page should have already been created to disambiguate it from the Denis Buckley's listed above. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out the question of who/what should be included on a DAB page is currently being discussed at WP:NOT. In that discussion, there are many who believe the current policy/guidance would generally prohibit inclusion of non-notable individuals on DAB pages. - Enos733 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as there are many who believe it doesn't and it shouldn't. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-ambiguous ones, Retarget the ambiguous ones. The non-ambiguous ones are WP:CHEAP, but the ambiguous ones should be sent to a more appropriate target and probably don't need hatnotes as they likely aren't notable and are only on a list. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Latina (song)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Latina (song)

War in Donbass

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. WP:CSK#4: Nominated by a blocked or banned user in violation of their block or ban. All participants in the discussion support keeping the redirect. (non-admin closure) FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement about where this expression should redirect to. I think that the DAB War in Donbas is better target. upd: while I was opening this request User:Крывіч already changed it back. But still let us discuss. Waltermaid (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to dab. Waltermaid did seem to use socks to get their way (Крывіч and Waltermaid are both tagged as socks of Dolyn), but I think that a misspelling of a phrase without a primary topic shouldn't have a primary topic, and IDOH's change was bold without consensus. CLYDEFRANKLIN 00:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1922 film & 2002 film & 2012 film

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget 1922 and 2012 to their respective "Year in film" titles, and keep 2002 since it already targets "2002 in film". (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

For the sake of consistency, these redirects should either target 1922 in film, 2002 in film, and 2012 in film respectively, or 1922 (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media (there are multiple films titled "1922"), 2002 (film), and 2012 (film) respectively. My preference is retarget to the "YEAR in film" titles since disambiguation is a Wikipedia invention, but ensure there are hatnotes on those articles referencing the other set of articles respectively (in either of the aforementioned presented options). Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget 2002 film to 2002 (film); Delete 1922 film; Keep 2012 film: I think that for consistency's sake it makes sense to pick one convention, and from my view someone typing 2012 film or 2002 film is more likely looking for the movie by that name than that year in film. The reason to delete 1922 is to maintain consistency. As there is no proper target to maintain consistency, that should be deleleted. TartarTorte 20:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargat 1922 to 1922 (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media, 2002 to 2002 (film) and keep 2012. If someone is searching for the title of a film followed by the word film, we should always take them to the article about the specific film with that film or, if there are multiple films with that name, to where they are disambiguated. Hatnotes can and should be used to the much less plausible (but not implausible) year in film articles. What we should absolutely not do is delete, because that offers literally no benefits to anybody while making it harder for people to find every target they could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "If someone is searching for the title of a film followed by the word film" - only if the film is also a year and shares its title with a topic related to that year, or should it be the same for any film title? Any reason a search for the ambiguous "2002 film" should go straight to a specific, and not well known, film whereas "Empire of the Sun film" doesn't, and there isn't even a hatnote from Thin film to Thin (film). The redirect of 1922 film to a page with no link to 1922 in film was not an improvement. If there is consensus that these are more likely to be film titles, there should be a bot that creates redirects from "[name of film] film" and "[name of film] movie" for every film and adds hatnotes or disambiguation pages where the title is not a redirect. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to "XYZ-year in film" as common sense meaning, since it isn't "the film named 2012" or "the film 2012" it is "2012 film" which means "film released in 2012" which is found at "2012 in film" -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 1922 in film with a hatnote for 1922 (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media, Keep, and Retarget to 2012 in film with a hatnote to 2012 (film). I think it is more probable for someone who searches "Foo film" is more likely looking for what happened to film in foo, not a film called Foo. CLYDEFRANKLIN 00:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Form of government

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Government#Forms. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look up government or political system in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Redirect Form of government ⟶ Political system. A 'form of government' is not a 'government'; it's more a synonym for political system, which is a related topic for which we have an article. (Some forms of government/political systems are: monarchy, republic, totalitarianism, democracy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc.; the article covers a few of them.)

Otoh, there is a lot of stuff in the Government article about 'political systems', so much so, that based on content alone one might wonder about whether a merge with Political systems was appropriate. However, based on the definitions, the topics are not the same, so maybe the Government article just needs some refactoring; but that's an issue which should be addressed there.

This discussion also applies to 'Forms of government' and 'Forms of Government', and any variants I may have missed. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe even better, List of forms of government, which I just found. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The current target is relevant, explicitly names the target, and covers the topic of the target in better detail; it's adequate as it is, but could be made more specific by targeting the relevant section of the current target: Government § Forms. Otherwise, I don't think it needs changing.
The term "form of government" (often synonymous with "system of government") is a subset of "political system"; the latter is a broader topic not a synonym. Forms of government are an aspect of governments, so it is appropriate that the main article about governments covers that aspect of the topic. List of forms of government would also work as a target, but I think it's generally better to link standard articles rather than lists and the list article is linked at the top of Government § Forms so if that's what someone is looking for they would find it easily on Government. – Scyrme (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ibid above InvadingInvader (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Patriots in control

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mentioned in article. "Patriots in control" seems to be the name of a podcast, but the term is not used in the article nor anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Delete. MB 04:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Astra (comics)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move to Astra (Marvel Comics) and Retarget to Astra#Entertainment. Jay 💬 08:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Displace edit history to Astra (Marvel Comics) that was merged to the list article, and repoint "Astra (comics) to Astra (disambiguation) ;;; There are multiple comics topics called "Astra" and this leads to an enormous list, so would be better served to point to the disambig page where one can find the other non-Marvel topic link easily instead of being lost on the page. As this topic was not notable enough to have its own article, it should point to the disambiguation page. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Forgive my laughter

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Forgive my laughter

Draft:Production of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this recent RfC for the mainspace redirect and this discussion which both agreed it is too early for an article to be had for these two films with not enough support for them being produced back-to-back. This redirect should be deleted, and was reverted back to a user sandbox that was repurposed, as happened with the prior draft of this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Abe Books.com

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a domain with a space in it seems unnatural/implausible. AbeBooks.com is fine, but the space makes this seem to me to be an implausible search term. TartarTorte 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, when one vocally being notified the existence of a bookselling platform of "abe books dot com", this redirect might be what people would type to reach their target. From mid 2015 to earlier this year, the page received 162 visitors. C933103 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's around 0.5/week, which to me seems very unlikely. I would not be opposed to Abe books dot com redirect, but I think the combination of form in using a space but using .com is implausible. TartarTorte 20:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Asparagus (color)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Asparagus (color)

The Google URL prefixed including the HTTP protocol

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Without prejudice to discussing other similar redirects on a separate RfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an implausible redirect to include the entire http protocol, especially when http://www.google.com redirects to https://www.google.com, making this an outdated link for anyone to be using to visit google. The page views are negligible and are likely from people accidentally pasting the link into wikipedia instead of the URL bar. TartarTorte 18:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_4&oldid=1138583348"