Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 18, 2018.

Instant grat download[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 Online music store. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instant grat download → Music download  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit hasty on making this, as it's essentially a free music download that comes with pre-ordering an album. A simple Google search should tell that an instant grat track/download is such, so, IMO, should be kept on music download, or added as a redirect to pre-order incentive. I'd actually prefer the latter. --Aleccat 22:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a redirect, yea or nay?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Online music store rather than Music download as part of how it is marketed. Music download would just be about the download itself, whereas music store could discuss it as a gimmick of giving the customer some tracks ahead of time for pre-ordering the album. But the section should be expanded to discuss this. iTunes is also a candidate since they used the term, but it's not clear if they originated "instant grat" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC) updated 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added instant grat to the online music store history/2000s section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Online music store - I agree. This is something that ought to be explained in context within a larger article, with appropriate links added in the sub-section. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:08, 21 May 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.

In event of moon disaster[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. Discussion after multiple relistings is split. Netoholic's late-breaking suggestion isn't terrible, but I am loathe to once-again relist or revert a ten-year-old AfD on the basis of that alone. In the interest of keeping these two aligned, and given the AfD closed to redirect to Apollo 11 in popular culture, where it was then removed to the main page, I am pointing In event of moon disaster to Apollo 11#Lunar ascent and return ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Event of Moon Disaster redirects to Apollo 11#Lunar ascent and return. Jc86035 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment but it's discussed more specifically at the target. Maybe the In Event of Moon Disaster needs retargeting? Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is here [1] in Wikisource Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding In Event of Moon Disaster to decide which target of the two is better.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split pretty evenly here, it'd be nice to get some agreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to stub - Since the votes are split and this memo has significant coverage, restoring the stub at the uppercased title and redirecting the lowercased one to it would put it on a path toward improvement. I believe readers looking for this want to see the text, and that can't happen in the brief mentions on the current target articles. -- Netoholic @ 08:37, 22 May 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.

Intuition--philosophy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 26#Intuition--philosophy

Camera (conventional)[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 Camera#Photographic camera. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though the word "conventional" is mentioned in the target article, it is unclear what the word "conventional" as a disambiguator is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it has no incoming article links and no apparent use. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Camera#Photographic camera. Google results are unequivocal about what the term "conventional camera" means and this is exactly how someone familiar with how we title articles would search for an article about it. I'm surprised we don't have a separate article about it (Digital camera is an article, Analog camera is a redirect) but we currently don't. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 18 May 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.

Sit out[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, per third-party search engines, this phrase seems to more refer to such concepts as "not participating". Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the target article now contains multiple references for the use of the term. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the correct term is hyphenated sit-out; make a redirect from that if you have use for it. This one is unused. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Pageviews Analysis tool on WMFLabs shows low but steady use of the redirect, so it is not unused. Having non-hyphenated redirects for hyphenated terms is a perfectly acceptable and common practice. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary or Dabify? Sit-out seems to refer to a porch. Sitting out means not participating. Wiktionary can be added for sit out. There's also a PTM for several wrestling moves that include the word sitout. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not correct. The term is mentioned at the target, with multiple reliable sources to back it up. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"sit-out" is mentioned; "sit out" is not. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard practice to redirect from the non-hyphenated version to the hyphenated version. This is how it is done everywhere on Wikipedia, e.g. commander in chief, Stoke on Trent, Austria Hungary, Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, etc. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:35, 18 May 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.

Template:WikiProject Music[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. No consensus-ish, but given the past history and the DBR, calling this delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the related TfD the project has decided that this banner should not be used, and instead, genre-specific banners should be used (for example here). redirecting to a single sub-project or task force is problematic, since there are many. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deprecate - i.e. replace it with a page that basically says "Don't use this template because <reason>, use a template from <list or category> instead." and possibly puts it in a category that can be tracked. It's very likely that people will continue to try an use this template so it's best to be helpful and direct people to what they should be using instead. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous TfD, closed as delete. It doesn't make sense to "deprecate" something that was just created, that isn't enough time for it to become an established practice. -- Tavix (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is something that people expect to exist though - so why not be helpful and educate them rather? It costs us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is something the project itself does not want. -- Tavix (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: I know you enjoy spamming that essay everywhere at RfD, but that is a broad statement about redirects in general, it does not help at all why this particular redirect should or should not be deleted. Yes, I know that redirects are cheap. They can also be WP:COSTLY, so instead of namedropping an essay at me with no other context or explanation, please offer explanations why this particular redirect should be kept. I appreciate you had begun to do so below. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: I have explained twice the benefits of my proposed solution. I have yet to see a coherent argument in favour of making things harder for anybody when we gain nothing by doing so. WP:COSTLY is a minority viewpoint and fundamentally wrong far more often that it is of any relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only need to explain your position once. Please don't brag about the fact that you explained it twice, like it makes me any more apt to agree with you... -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bragging!? What on earth are you on about? I was simply pointing out why I don't need to explain my reasoning again in response to your request for explanation of the benefits of anything at this title, while pointing out that you have not presented anything that supports your position. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, well my response was to Jax, not you. That's probably where the disconnect happened. Thanks, though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, consensus can change, but the original deletion of the template was preceded by a discussion at the WikiProject. The proper course of action, therefore, would be to initiate a discussion to see if this is something they want now. I am not going to judge whether or not the target should exist, but I agree that the target shouldn't be a sub−page. I believe the easiest solution would be to rename it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I have posted links to this discussion at the template talk page as well as the WikiProject talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are too many subprojects of WP:Music to have a single redirect. Any transclusions of deleted banners are quickly found and fixed via the associated weekly database report; so no need to deprecate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:19, 18 May 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.

Century Tower (Chicago)/version 2[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 Edit history moved to Century Tower Condominiums, and leftover redirect suppressed per WP:G6. Seems like a pretty clean case to close this early per WP:IAR as uncontroversial cleanup. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely implausible redirect with no page views in the last month. Dolotta (talk) 13:36, 18 May 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.

Bulllshit[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) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. No word in the English language uses three consecutive repetitions of the same letter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very unlikely misspelling. PKT(alk) 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and goes where it should. -- Tavix (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say it's a very plausible typo, and redirects are cheap after all. Richard0612 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google/Bing search shows a lot of bulllshit, i.e. a very plausible typo/alternative spelling. Christian75 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 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.

Ding (Ding)[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) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't tell us which "ding" it links to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:59, 18 May 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.

Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 26#Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher

Foot file[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. Not the strongest of results, but there's at least a passing mention. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, Nail file may be a viable retargeting option, but I'm not sold on the two subjects being the same per search results in third-party search engines. It seems that a "foot file" may be a tool that rubs off access skin from the bottom of one's foot. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you mean Callus shaver? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A foot file is actually traditionally a wooden device that has a material like sandpaper on one or both sides. A callus shaver ... a tool I'm familiar with ... is just, as the tool is named, for the temporary shaving of calluses. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it can stay where it is, since Pedicure seems to cover feet care activities in general and not just the nails. I'm seeing verbiage about foot baths and scrubs. It's barely mentioned in the "types of pedicures" section under regular pedicure AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Foot file could be covered in the current target article, so keeping it per WP:CHEAP is probably best.- MrX 🖋 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be covered there, but at the present time, it is not. Keeping this redirect in place without proper information there describing the topic of the redirect leaves readers without finding the information they are looking for. At the present time, deleting this redirect per WP:REDLINK to encourage content creation could potentially be the better option. That, and WP:CHEAP doesn't apply in thus specific situation since there is no information regarding any variation of the redirect referenced in the target article; in addition, the subject of the redirect is not the subject of the article, but rather an unmentioned and currently unidentified subtopic. Steel1943 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 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.

Toe separater[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) 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I mean, I get that working on toes is part of a pedicure, but the term "separater" is both unclear in how it relates to a pedicure, as well as misspelled (separator). Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after looking through third party search engines, seems that a "toe separator" is a tool of sorts to separate toes, probably during applying nail polish or something of the such. However, it does not seem as though the subject is identified in the target article; in effect, besides being a misspelling, this redirect may qualify for WP:REDLINK if an appropriate target is not found. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it were spelled correctly, it might have some utility. As it is, it does not.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 May 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.

Wikipedia:Other crap exists[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. I normally lean toward allowing these sort of redirects, and am especially prone to be convinced to keep tongue-in-cheek projectspace redirects, but this hasn't been widely used and incivility is different from non-npov. Editor who want to make a point can still use pipes to write [[WP:OSE|other shit exists]]. Moreover, "stuff" is itself somewhat dismissive, and given the potentially contentious nature at AfD, etc., I'm not convinced we need to make it easier to tick people off. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily abusive and insulting to the article creators and editors of the article that this redirect is used to refer to Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I cannot see this being used in a positive manner. Labeling other Wikipedians' work as "shit" and "crap" is completely counter to the WP:CIVILITY policy. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect is used, and the uses I spot checked do not show it being used in a problematic manner. If someone does use it inappropriately then deal with the editor not the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen it often used in an aggressive manner at AFD and having the redirect gives tacit approval to abuse Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-established and used link. Not everything is puppies and rainbows. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and not everything is crap and shit ... Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Other Crap" is part of the English vernacular and can convey a levity; it is not necessarily rude. If editors are not going to adhere to WP:CIVILITY this re-direct will have no influence. There are ways of dealing with uncivil editors that do not include deleting a re-direct. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont expect you would think it a levity if your articles were described as crap Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, I have had some edits called worse than crap, and seen worse insults thrown at other editors' work that don't include slang or bad language. "Other crap like this exists" is not insulting to me at all, and as I pointed out, it is part of the English vernacular. If editors get upset by this phrase they need to get a thicker skin. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only serves to promote battleground mentality without any real upside. We could use more puppies and rainbows (and unicorns!). - MrX 🖋 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a civility violation. wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one is most often used tongue in cheek, whereas WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS wasn't. Agree with deletion of the latter, but let's keep the former. — JFG talk 07:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's too bad because when used judiciously I think it can communicate some valuable aspects of Wikipedia culture (not taking ourselves too seriously, etc.), but I don't feel we remotely have an adequate mechanism for dealing with editors who use it abusively, so better not to give official cover to that. I trust all others will find sufficient ways to communicate what needs communicating. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 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.

Parasceve[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 26#Parasceve

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_18&oldid=1142586805"