Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 12, 2018.

Vegas (TV show)[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 Vegas (disambiguation)#Television. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion desired. More than one TV series had the title "Vegas", including Vegas (1978 TV series). 2600:1008:B007:EBC6:3C01:9E98:9935:7F8B (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2018 (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.

Whitelash[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 White backlash. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G5, created by blocked sock User:Sagecandor. Also judging by the page views it is not a useful soft redirect. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not eligible for G5 as Cirt (the user Sagecandor is a sock of) was not blocked at the time this redirect was created (December 2016), although he was topic banned from biographies this is not a biography or closely related to one so it was not topic ban evasion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect got nearly 800 views last year, and has received nearly 300 this year (even excluding yesterday when it was nominated for an incorrect speedy deletion (A critera do not apply to redirects)), suggesting that it is in fact a very well used search term. I don't see there being scope for an article at thissanctions title, and all the other hits on enwp I can find are uses of the word that would not make good targets (e.g. it would be inappropriate to redirect this term to a person's biography). Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: The page views dropped dramatically because it was a news item when created at the time that has largely died out. With a continued trend downwards. Also it was created by a sock, an account that should of been blocked on creation, it just took a while to catch them. G5 is appropriate for sock puppets. Finally the term came to prominence when Van Jones used it when describing Trump's election, so it could fall under their topic ban since they could not create it under his main account. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G5 only applies to content created in violation of a block or ban, which this was not - there are many legitimate uses for sockpuppets (WP:SOCKLEGIT) so the use of one is not automatically a blocking offence. Just because someone used a term in connection with a person (let alone a person's election) does not make that term a biography. So what if the page views are declining? It is still evidently a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there are legit socks, this was unambiguously not that. Again if they tried to make this on their main account they would of been blocked as a violation of their topic ban. So yes, it is content created in violation of a topic ban. Declining page views indicate less usefulness, and largely not a search term that is needed. Since this was a flash in the pan news item of the day there is no reason to expect a continued decline in it's already questionable usefulness. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained why this is both useful and not a violation of the topic ban. I shall refrain from doing so again as it seems unlikely to be productive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban speaks for itself "his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy". This term easily fits political and social controversy. It was done by an account created to evade that topic ban as documented above. It is unfortunate that we do not agree, so I will leave it there with you as well. Thanks for your input. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban was for "biographies" so that's what he was banned from, and only that. If he used this redirect inappropriately that would be a different matter, but it still wouldn't make the creation of the redirect a violation of the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the below. I'm not sure how I failed to find that article, but it is clearly the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to White backlash, which seems to be more or less synonymous with "whitelash": there's no need for a soft redirect to Wiktionary if a closely related term has its own article in the encyclopaedia. (I don't know this meets G5, but nominating a page at XfD and citing a CSD criterion is not really how the deletion process is supposed to work. If the page is deletable under G5 then it should be tagged as such; if it's found not to meet the criterion, but you still feel it should be deleted, then another rationale would have to be found.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to White backlash. It's literally mentioned in that article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to White backlash as where the term is discussed--Lenticel (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2018 (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.

White power sign[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. Refine to OK (gesture)#Pranks (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "OK" sign is not, in fact, a white power sign; rather that was a hoax spread by 4chan which succeeded temporarily. The article does have content discussing the hoax, but in my opinion that isn't reason enough to have a context-free redirect like this which might be taken to suggest that the "OK" gesture actually is a white power sign. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is, but AFAIK the point of redirects is to direct people to a specific article where they can read about the term, in this case - that it was all a hoax. Redirects are not supposed to equate the two terms. Anyway, the results of this discussion should also affect White power hand sign since it was the other redirect I created together with the one you specified. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that page to the nomination; thank you for pointing it out. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to OK (gesture)#Pranks where this is explained, per Openlydialectic. Possibly tag as {{R from misnomer}} to further highlight the context. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Thryduulf. I don't think anyone who's directed to that section could come away with the impression "that the 'OK' gesture actually is a white power sign". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2018 (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.

Willl and grace[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. This is an incredibly marginal case of whether the typo was plausible enough. Some argued that this is a plausible typo with an unambiguous target, and the hit rate is high enough to merit a redirect; others argued that the typo was too implausible and the hit rate isn't high enough. I don't see a consensus in either direction, but no demonstration of overwhelming harm either, so I'm closing this as "no consensus, default to keep". Deryck C. 13:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible typo Reyk YO! 14:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - acceptable {{redirect from miscapitalisation}}, and as such I have added the template to the redirect. While not acceptable for wikilinking, this redirect may aid in search navigation within Wikipedia and navigation to the Wikipedia article from external links. The redirect sees 100+ hits a day; it's obvious it's being used and that somebody finds it helpful. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the lower case g in "grace" that's the problllem. Reyk YO! 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reyk: Ahh, I see the extra "l" now. Still, someone is obviously finding this useful given the steady amount of pageviews, and it's not harming anything. Why delete something that's obviously aiding in navigation? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cymru.lass. It's not really harming anything and it's extremely unlikely it will ever be used for another topic, so I don't see any reason to delete it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cymru.lass. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a stylization where the letters or punctuation marks after Will might cause confusion. Will and grace exists to cover the lower-case instance. Stats do not show 100 hits a day, more like 200 views over 3 years [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus. Stats show approx 5 hits a month for three years, and this has the lowercase g and triple l, which makes it unlikely and just too many issues to bear; search will be fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as highly implausible. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent comments show this discussion is still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The triple "l" makes it implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Not completely implausible, but implausible enough that I don't think it's worth keeping. If it was just the third "l", I'd lean towards "keep", but between that, the lowercase g, and also the "and" instead of "&"... Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally unambiguous and received almost 100 hits last year. No reason to delete. JZCL 20:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's correct that common stylisations cannot explain the uses, it ultimately doesn't really matter why a redirect is used, just that it is used. There is no question that someone using the redirect is arriving at the correct target, it's not in the way of anything else, and we don't want an article at this title so it's harmless. As with every redirect that is both harmless and used there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (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.

Warfist[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 22#Warfist

Lutz Ebersdorf[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. No point in leaving this open any more. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tilda Swinton has admitted that she was Lutz Ebersdorf (see e.g. [2]), opening an RFD to determine whether this should be retargetted to Tilda Swinton or kept as it is. Currently neutral on the outcome. Iffy★Chat -- 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The current target, Suspiria (2018 film), explains the pseudonym far more than Tilda Swinton, and as far as I can see it should stay that way, as it seems to have been a one-time deal just for this movie. Swinton said that the original idea was to "kill" Ebersdorf during the post-production so it is doubtful she will inhabit the role ever again. It is the concerted effort by the whole cast and crew to keep it under wraps that makes it noteworthy, and thus our discussion of it better belongs to Suspiria (2018 film) than to Tilda Swinton IMO. Nardog (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Suspiria (2018 film)#Lutz Ebersdorf. There is a section of prose at the article about the film compared to a single short note in a table at Swinton's article. I also agree with Nardog's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Thryduulf. Good morning. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2018 (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.

.app[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 Procedural close. The redirect has been converted to a disambiguation page so is no longer in RfD's scope. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably go to a disambiguation page. Since the last discussion on this redirect, the .app domain was launched, and .app is also used extensively by macOS.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Taras (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Taras: if you are suggesting converting the redirect into a disambiguation page then just be bold and do it. If you are proposing that this be retargetted to App (an existing dab page) then that will need expanding to include entries related to .app. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2018 (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.

Tropical Storm Wila(1988)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 20#Tropical Storm Wila(1988)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_12&oldid=1036308183"