Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2018.

Lookout Mountain (Georgia)[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 Lookout Mountain (disambiguation). Convinced by the below that this seems most useful. I agree with... everyone that there's a larger conversation to be had about how these various titles should be (re)named. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects could be considered misleading and/or ambiguous since the city of Lookout Mountain, Georgia is in Walker County, Georgia. I suggest either Retarget both to Lookout Mountain (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}s or delete both. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, especially the second one which was recently created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting to the dab page is confusing, because there are many non-Georgia Lookout Mountains to choose from. Better to just delete. —hike395 (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of deletion, because they're likely be recreated. And if "Lookout Mountain (Georgia)" is incomplete disambiguation, so is "Lookout Mountain, Georgia" is too. I'm leaning towards retargeting to Lookout Mountain, Georgia, which could probably use a hatnote, even though the mountain is linked in the lede as well. The only other thing that really makes sense to me is moving the city article and redirecting the current title to the mountain. While there are other uses of plain "Lookout Mountain", once you throw Georgia in there, it becomes a WP:TWODABS situation. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since as of right now the mountain is the primary topic, meaning these are simply {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Also, since natural features are usually disambiguated parenthetically and localities are always disambiguated with a comma, the redirects have stronger affinity to a mountain than a city. -- Tavix (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see "keep" as being a helpful option in this case, considering that the target of these redirects is currently at an ambiguous title without disambiguation, and the "comma vs. parentheses" disambiguation is a form of "WikiSpeak" that only those who are Wikipedia regulars would understand. One cannot expect those who are not familiar with Wikipedia to expect or initially know that precedence (or the standard set by the community) is for cities/counties/etc. to use comma disambiguation, whereas geographic features use parenthetical disambiguation when referring to what "area" either one is located. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we accept that the Mountain in Georgia is the primary topic for "Lookout Mountain", then Lookout Mountain (Georgia) would also be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for that topic. Since "Lookout Mountain" and "Lookout Mountain (Georgia)" are both ambiguous, the hatnote would re-direct those looking for the city. I don't disagree with your points regarding comma vs. parenthesis, but I do think Wikipedia needs to be consistent on the issue where possible so those who do pick up on the pattern should be able to use it to their advantage. FWIW, I would prefer deletion over any retargeting if it helps form consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation is clearly the best thing here, whether that is a new disambiguation page or retargetting to the existing dab page I'm not sure - Steel1943's point about naming conventions and knowledge thereof is particularly relevant. Deletion is preferable to the status quo though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 6 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.

Danger opportunity Chinese word[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) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. I have created the new redirect Danger opportunity as an alternative. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 3 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.

Omnimalevolence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 12#Omnimalevolence

Malevolent God[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 Dystheism. Where they originally were targeted, although Dystheism was soon-after retargeted to misotheism. Dystheism has been an article for longer than it wasn't, so this is a return home. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dystheism seems like a better fit here, though I suppose belief in a malevolent god and hatred of that god are likely to go hand in hand. I came across this via its only incoming link, from Descartes's Evil demon. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • not a vote: these aren't really necessary, but they also do no harm. For your information, these are traces of a giant argument with User:Craig zimmerman who was really invested in advocating what he called "Maltheism" at the time, and we ended up leaving a few redirects around just to avoid pointless debate. --dab (𒁳) 19:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ought to point to Dystheism, as Misotheism May be directed toward a nonmalevolent deity. Pandeist (talk) 02:16, 8 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.

Biblical support for dystheism[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 withdrawn/keep, and sensibly pointed to Scripture section. I think some sort of merge still makes sense, but doesn't have much impact on this particular redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed at the target article or Dystheism. Looking at the history of the redirect, it used to be an OR article about apparent biblical contradictions. There may have been a merge, but it doesn't look like there's anything to preserve now; perhaps Dbachmann can shed some light on that. BDD (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • this one is just kept around for its edit history. Perhaps rename it, or merge histories, or something. Or at least tag it as unprintworthy. --dab (𒁳) 19:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's fair. I'm not sure what I was searching on that I missed that. Still, it's a mismatch, though. A lot of content at Misotheism seems to really be about dystheism. I wonder if a merge is called for there? --BDD (talk) 19:44, 3 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.

Eutheism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 11#Eutheism

LSD (Labrinth, Sia and Diplo song)[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 speedily deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a known song by this name. "Genius" was released today. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G7'ed. Apparently Billboard thought this was the title, that's why I made the redirect. Hayman30 (talk) 15:15, 3 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.

User:Godal[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 redirect to Banana. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor Talk 03:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard redirect from userspace. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a soft redirect, which is almost always the best course of action for such redirects. The user redirect the page there themselves, so they clearly want the association and a soft redirect maintains that while removing all the problems with unexpectedly arriving at an article when looking for a user. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 5 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.

Draft:Enlisted Jesus[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) 19:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a draft (redirect from draft to main space) and "Enlisted Jesus" has no basis in the article. Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since WP:RDRAFT does not apply as a reason to keep this redirect; this redirect is not a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in addition to the above, there is no mention of "Jesus" in the target article or other indication of why the subject is associated with this phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 5 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.

WIFLf*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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable redirect for the song article. Was never listed as such anywhere. People would probably search for WIFLFAG instead of this. —IB [ Poke ] 11:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment was this stylization ever used on the single? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only use on Wikipedia appears to be this redirect. The only use outside Wikipedia is what appears to be gibberish produced from attempting OCR on a badly scanned (or possibly corrupted) image of a newspaper article from 1837 - which is not relevant to a pop song released in 2001! Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 5 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.

Genau (The German in You)[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. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan and unlikely search term. Originally created for single that was canceled, so the subject doesn't exist. The song title on album it points to isn't the same as this title either. —Torchiest talkedits 05:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, with this article referring to it by this name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the redirect does not match the name of a song title. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only that magazine uses the term. The band does not use it as a subtitle, not even for a remix track. Note the German wikipedia does not have an entry for Genau de:Genau AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The band referred to "Genau (The German in You)" here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 22:10, 25 April 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) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this name with subtitle has clearly been used, and it's not exactly like this redirect will be confused with anything else. I'm not sure how helpful it is, but it's neither incorrect nor likely to confuse anyone, so I see no issue with leaving it there. ~ mazca talk 23:07, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_3&oldid=1138582482"