Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2018.

Noel G.[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the target to suggest that this should be a redirect to this barely notable actor. Why not to Noel Gallagher, or Noel Gay, or Noel Gerson, or Noel Grigsby, or any of the other Noels whose last name starts with G? Onel5969 TT me 23:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Noel Gugliemi is the clear primary topic for a google search on the exact phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and benefits nobody to point to a single article. This exact phrase does not exist at the target article so it cannot possibly be considered the "primary topic" for it. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the redirect because he appears in credits as "Noel G." in some films. Tajotep (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a source explaining that Gugliemi is "better known as" Noel G. to the lede, and bolded his alias. To answer the nom's hypothetical, unless anybody else is actually known as "Noel G.", the redirect is fine as is. For example, even though Barack Obama is the only (notable) Barack O., nobody calls him that so there is no reason to assume someone would search for him in that capacity. -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Quorum of Twelve[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. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This term should redirect to the article Quorum of the Twelve instead. That potential target is notable enough to have an article. The current redirect to Battlestar Galactica is based on a peripheral fictional element of it, but it is so peripheral that the article doesn't even mention it. Google search for "quorum of twelve" (with or without quotes) show clear majority of results are for real world LDS church meaning not fictional meaning. SJK (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the present redirect to Quorum of Twelve (Battlestar Galactica) and retarget it to Colonial Day, then create a new redirect for the LDS usage. The LDS usage is clearly the primary topic, but most of the incomming links for this redirect are related to Battlestar Galactica so simply retargetting is not enough. Colonial Day seems to be the episode in which it was introduced and which contains a brief description of it (it's only one sentence, but the most I've found) and would be probably be a sensible place to write a longer piece. Retaining a redirect will allow an easy title for editors to find to link to (in case it is expanded or more content is written about it elsewhere) and allow a simple hatnote at the LDS page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica alerting them to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quorum of the Twelve as the original concept and primary topic. Hatnote appears to be there already. Create Quorum of Twelve (Battlestar Galactica) as above and redirect that to Colonial Day. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fouladpur City[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. Per BDD. There's no need for editors to belittle others' arguments, surely we can discuss redirects peacefully. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a city. The entire article was a mess (eg: it had an academic bio stub template) but the text made it clear that it was a village and such sources as I can find also say that. (I've not actually used the sources after moving the article because I'm not convinced of the reliability). There was probably a better way to deal with this, sorry. Sitush (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from move}}. The article was at this title from creation in 2016 until shortly before the nomination. People will therefore still look for it a the old title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this rationale, sorry. If I create an article called something stupidly misleading and it isn't spotted for a couple of years then we should keep it as a redirect even if it is stupidly misleading? The thing was all over the place - no talk page, the wrong stub template, invalid sources etc. There is no way this is a city and there is some doubt about whether it is even a census place. Furthermore, if someone types the first word in for that title then they'll get the legitimately titled article in any case without needing to add City. I'm clearly missing something but it does seem very bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - the template specifically says "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." The purpose of the redirect is to enable people to find the article they are looking for. When a page has been around a while it will likely have attracted links from outside Wikipedia, bookmarks, etc. - not everybody uses the internal search engine to find pages. It also takes time for mirrors and other reusers of content to catch up with changes in page location. It is fine to revisit this redirect in a few months to see whether it is still being used, and if it isn't then deletion might be appropriate at that time, but not right after moving a page from a title it's been stable at for a long time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. How are external links checked in a few months' time? Why doesn't some equivalent of this apply for deleted articles which, presumably, would also have incoming external links? After all, this article might as well have been deleted for all the good it serves. And why do we care about mirrors? - it is their problem, not ours. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no way of directly checking for the presence or absence of external links, all we can do is look at the traffic statistics and see if it is being used - if there are no internal links and a redirect is getting significant hits then it most likely is linked from somewhere external and/or getting hits from search engines if it is a plausible search term (I haven't investigated whether this is or not). As for caring about mirrors, that's simply part of being a good online citizen and avoiding unnecessary link rot, etc.
          Deletion is qualitatively different because in that case the content no longer exists rather than having been moved to a different location. If you think the target article should be deleted then feel free to take it to AfD or prod (although I have a vague memory that prodding articles about settlements that verifiably exist is discouraged somewhere). Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is becoming clearer. I appreciate the effort you have put in to explain this. Yes,there is some sort of consensus regarding not deleting populated places but there is some leeway in the definition, otherwise every street etc would warrant an article. In any event, this place does not exist as Fouladpur City - it really doesn't, not merely in India but anywhere in the world. And not even under its variant spelling. So I am in the peculiar position where it could be deleted via AfD or PROD but not via RfD. But now, having converted it to a redirect in good faith, the thing cannot go to PROD etc anyway. There is a flaw in the system somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article (at whatever title) can be deleted at prod or AfD, and if it is the redirect can (and almost certainly will) be speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G8), but while the article exists the redirect to it will unlikely be deleted until it is clear it is not being used. Whether the place exists as any given name is not the only (or even primary) factor in determining the value of a redirect, redirects are kept if they are useful in some way, and a redirect from an old, established title to a new title is clearly very useful in the period after a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, thanks for your help. This nomination can be withdrawn. I don't think I will bother with RfD in future - seems pointless. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, now it seems that I am not alone in finding this to be somewhat bizarre. Might as well let the discussion run, then. As an update, I've now found a census place call Fauladpur that may correspond to what was intended, although even that is open to question - see Talk:Fouladpur. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sitush's findings match my own. There is zero usage of "Fouladpur City" outside of Wiki-mirrors. {{R from incorrect name}} exists for plausible errors, for example, but this is not one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh once again I find myself having to bite my tongue to remain civil while you advocate significantly inconveniencing readers of the encyclopaedia. {{R from move}} is the relevant consideration here at the current time, as with any redirect nominated minutes after a moving an article from a title it has been stable at for over two years. {{R from incorrect name}} and others can be considered down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added {{R from incorrect name}}. Raymond1922 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleads just by existing. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per the standard "R from move" reasoning as this was the title of the article for almost two years until it was moved a few days ago. The {{R from incorrect name}} tag would take care of hiding this redirect from search results and the like (so readers don't get misled). However, we don't want to keep this forever, so I would like the close of this discussion to include a statement allowing speedy deletion in six months. – Uanfala (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion would be very inappropriate (unless of course it met one of the criteria at that time), but taking a look to see if it is still used anywhere or if there are any other reasons to keep would be a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're worrying far too much about how this might affect other websites and indeed our own internal links. The latter are easily fixed, although I doubt many (or even any) exist, and the former, well, it is their problem, not ours. We can't act as a support for the entire web just because someone creates what is effectively a hoax article. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maintaining the stability of links to our articles is our problem - who else's could it even be? While the article exists it is our duty to make sure that those wanting to read it can find it, and a crucial part of that is not deleting redirects created from page moves until other people have had an opportunity to, at the very least, update their links and bookmarks - indeed deleting the redirect would make it significantly harder for the links to be updated as there would not be a clear notice pointing to the new location. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • We were daft enough to allow a sort-of hoax article to exist. If other sites are daft enough to rely on us then they deserve all the problems they get. We're not reliable, get over it. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your opinion of the quality of the content couldn't be more irrelevant - while the article exists it is our duty to allow people to continue to find it if we move it. Wikipedia's purpose is to educate people and making it unnecessarily hard for people to find what they are looking for goes against the letter and spirit of that. If you believe an article is a hoax then the correct thing to do is to take it to AfD - RfD is not concerned with usefulness, not reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article doesn't exist. A different article exists about what may as well be a different place. And I said it was a "sort-of" and "effectively" a hoax. But if you want to move the article back to the original target then, yes, I will send it to AfD and then later recreate something under a more likely title (which may not even be Fouldapur per my comments on the talk page there). This is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not ridiculous in the slightest. You moved a page from one title to another, it still exists. You may have edited it but it still exists - we leave redirects from moves so people can still find it. If this wasn't relevant then the thousands (at least) of {{R from move}} redirects would not exist. You did not write a new article, you edited an existing one - this happens every day and is not a reason to disrupt Wikipedia (by sticking two fingers up to readers) to make a point (that you think people being able to find content is not important, or something, I really don;t understand why you find the idea of readers being important so repugnant). Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've never said that I find them repugnant. You're dredging the barrel now. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per all above.And umm........classifying Thryduulf's argument as utterly nonsensical is doing a favor.∯WBGconverse 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsensical!? Please explain why making it hard for readers to find the content via the title it has been stable at for two years is anything other than a Good Thing1? Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The case for keeping is not at all ridiculous, but {{R from move}} doesn't make a redirect inviolable. And color me skeptical that there are many external links pointed at the old title. The unambiguity really clinched it for me—if there were a Fouladpur district or anything else with that name, I could see this as acceptable as a clumsy attempt at natural disambiguation. I just don't see the value in keeping this unique coinage. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2019 World Surf League[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. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading, due to the fact that the targets say nothing about the World Surf League in these years. -- Tavix (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nominator. The 2019 redirect in particular is a likely search term, but I can't find anywhere we have any information on it - even whether it is going to happen or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jalape±o[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how these would be plausible misspellings. -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason I made these redirects is because of how this word appears in the DOS font, where ñ (character 241) appears as ±. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an attempt to represent a case of mojibake, an incorrect character being displayed due to the wrong character encoding being used. There are an almost endless number of possible examples of this phenomena, I don't think it is a good idea to create redirects for these cases. SJK (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Gorobay as I recall they have a bit of specialty with understanding mojibake. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been many mojibake redirects brought to RfD over the years. ⟨ñ⟩ in Latin-1 is encoded as 0xF1, and 0xF1 decodes into ⟨±⟩ in code page 437 (the default code page of the Windows Command Prompt). This particular strain of mojibake would apply to most diacriticized letters in Western European orthographies. Gorobay (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Government Act[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 no consensus. Well this got out of hand, WP:VWXYZ? Act#Law and Disambiguate each have a couple supporters, but the former isn't comprehensive and I'm not convinced the later won't devolve into an indiscriminate listing, with Statute, Legislation, Bill (law), Statutory law, Act (document), Act#Law, Act of state, and State act (and maybe even items like Local Government Act, Act of Parliament, or Act of Congress). As that laundry list suggests, I find this entire area of pages grossly inefficient and unhelpful, and this conversation seems to agree. Not one seems to be the best or even a particularly good choice, I'm unconvinced a comprehensive dab page will make things less ambiguous, and regardless, I don't read any consensus below. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this target Legislation? Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This seems like it could go to a number of pages, including not just the above two articles but also 'bill (law)'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many things this could mean and Search is probably better than trying to guess what the user meant: an action of government; various Government of India Acts and Local Government Acts, etc. In the UK, at least, statutes are Acts of Parliament and not of Government. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. "There are many things this could mean", and when excluding the partial title matches like "Local Government Acts" (which can be a single see also link to the list at Local Government Act) the list is not infinite. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A disambiguation page ... lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title" (WP:DAB). There's nothing to disambiguate: no article titles contain "Government Act", or could be called "Government Act", where it is not a WP:PTM. If this redirect didn't exist already, we wouldn't invent it as a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I find the WP:PTM argument against a dab to be somewhat compelling, but share CWM's gut sense that this feels like it should be useful. Let's find out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambiguation page will help readers of the encyclopaedia find what they are looking for, deletion will not. So what if it doesn't technically meet the arbitrary definition of a dismabiguation page? WP:IAR exists for situations exactly like this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Search box exists for situations exactly like this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Search box often gives confusing and unintuitive results. bd2412 T 19:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As another option has been suggested, relisting one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943, CoffeeWithMarkets, Shhhnotsoloud, Thryduulf, Tavix, Amorymeltzer, and Galobtter: Everyone has suggested something different. Does anyone wish to reevaluate or select another option as a compromise/secondary choice. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the reasons I've given above, above, and that search results (when people actually see them, which is sometimes several clicks away from where they arrive) are not really going to be particularly helpful, I think that disambiguation is still the best option here. Act (document) is sort of relevant for some uses of the search term, but not directly and so would make a poor single target but a good see-also on a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that disambiguation is a reasonable route to take. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Act (the most relevant existing disambiguation page). This term is too unclear in meaning to be retargeted to anything more specific. SJK (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that suggestion - Act is a huge disambiguation page, and almost none of the entries on it are relevant to the search term and those that are aren't all in a single section we could target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Act#Law as best synonym. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be disambiguated as it could refer to an act of state or to some other act of the executive that is not legislation. James500 (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a disambiguation page at State act, and with good reason. James500 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a thing called an "act of government": see Google Books. Sources speak of it as including both legislative and executive acts. This might be a primary topic. James500 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, when this refers to "act of government, . . . act of the king in his executive or legislative capacity" it might be referring specifically to acts done under the royal prerogative, the "legislative capacity" in question being the capacity to make prerogative legislation. I am not certain what this expression actually means. James500 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_June_11&oldid=1036307741"