Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2019.

Samba school carnavalescos and singers[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 all except Marcus Ferreira. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rest of the list (54)

Here are a bunch of redirects on individual singers and carnavalescos created by blocked sockmaster Biantez. The target sections only discuss singers and carnavalescos generally and don't include a list of individuals, so the target is not helpful for those wanting specific information on these people. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2019 (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.

Glad He's Gone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Glad He's Gone

Homosexual lifestyle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Homosexual lifestyle

Gull Island (Niagara River)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Gull Island (Niagara River)

Gull Island (Lake Kagawong)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Gull Island (Lake Kagawong)

Woolong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 28#Woolong

Face of the Sun[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 disambiguate. I'll make a draft dab, but it won't be pretty — I'll be pinging you all ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, "face of the Sun" should be free of obstacle to refer to the face of the actual Sun, not send people to a track on an unreleased Christian album. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then repoint it to the article for the Sun? What is the big issue here In ictu oculi? The album is not "unreleased", as in was supposed to come out at a point in time and didn't, it's forthcoming, as in yet to be released, and there's also nothing to suggest the album is Christian music just because of a few track titles or Stapp's religion and songwriting themes. Ss112 12:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Could also refer to other things, i.e. a musical side-project by Chris Eskola and others, a 1970 single by Barry Stagg, an album by Pete Johansen's former band, possibly other things too. PC78 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The primary topic on Google is a song by Shana Cleveland, which we don't have an article about. Readers wanting to know about the face of the sun on the Argentine and Uruguayan flags should have a link to Sun of May and/or Sun (heraldry). Face of the Rising Sun is a two-item dab page that could be merged or linked in a see also. Faces to the Sun would definitely be an appropriate see also. There are possibly other things too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate?, per Thryduulf. If it were only for the various songs, albums, etc. that are only mentioned in passing here and there, deletion would have been the better choice (letting readers discover these entities via the search results), but Sun (heraldry) appears to be a topic that can legitimately be referred to as "face of the sun", and one could easily also see Solar deity as relevant. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2019 (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.

Robert (Bob) Earl “Butterbean” Love[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. First off, the MOS isn't particularly relevant here at all: that's for the content of an article, and even the convention for naming an article, but it has no real bearing on the titles of redirects (except to elucidate what will/won't be written in an article). I'm pretty easily convinced by old redirects being worth keeping should there be any links, external or not, so that's a strong argument. Moreover, I'm amenable to the presence of "smart" quotes being helpful, as someone who is currently use a popular application that refuses to not use smart quotes, but it does make the redirect slightly less likely or useful. In the end, however, the strongest argument I read here is the multitude of "unlikeliness factors": parenthetical nickname, different quoted nickname, and smart quotes. If I had to !vote I'd probably keep it, but I think the stronger arguments here are to delete it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "curly" quotation marks are contrary to MOS. Note that Robert (Bob) Earl "Butterbean" Love (with straight quotation marks) is a redirect to Bob Love. Cnilep (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave it alone. This is precisely the scenario outlined in WP:R#HARMFUL (second bullet point). The link has worked for more than a decade. We don't know how many other websites or older versions of articles might point to it. There is no benefit whatsoever to deleting it, and some potential for harm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:CURLY. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP#4 and WhatamIdoing. - PaulT+/C 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I was initially going to say keep because I think the discussion has been poorly framed. This is unsuitable as a title for at least two reasons, but a redirect? Sure enough, though, it has a grand total of 5 views in the past year. That's really, really low. And it's hard to imagine a user actually searching for this. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BDD, This tool says 143 pageviews during the year before this RFD began. Maybe your count was thrown off by its recent page move?
      The policy is that we don't delete decade-old redirects even if we can't prove that they're being used very often, because we want to keep old versions working, too. Redirects are cheap. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think that must have been it. Weak keep it is then. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if you ignore the quotes this redirect is a full name and a hypocorism in brackets and a nickname. Who would ever construct a name in that way? —Xezbeth (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing and Psantora. Curly quotes don't belong in article titles in most cases, but they're perfectly valid search terms and so redirects are good where they exist. Ultimately keeping this is harmless and potentially useful to some, while edeletion brings no benefits and is likely harmful given the age of the redirect - very clearly then keeping is the action that benefits the encyclopaedia the most. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, folks, nobody is searching this term. They might search Bob or Robert or Butterbean Love but those redirects exist too. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to MOS, and very unlikely to be searched/linked since almost no one has curly quotes on their keyboard; having curly quotes stand in for straight quotes could get very WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • UnitedStatesian, COSTLY's idea is that redirects "can sometimes be a burden", e.g., if the main article gets split or restructured. In what way does just ignoring this particular redirect produce a significant burden on Wikipedia? (I can see someone believing that it's pointless, but that's an argument against not having created it in the first place. Now that it exists, we need a positive reason to bother with deleting it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • COSTLY is broader than that, and also includes what we have seen over and over again: "Oh, there is one redirect with (for example) curly quotes, let me go and create 5, 50, 500 more." That's what concerns me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whereas Butterbean Love is something that might be searched this is not.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not just the quotes characters, it's also the unlikely use of a full name + nickname + hypocorism in brackets. I don't think we should worry about older revisions or external links as this has always only been a redirect, and it's very unlikely anyone on wikipedia or elsewhere would have linked to it. The redirect has also received an average of 4 views per year since 2015, and the larger figure quoted above comes entirely from the days immediately following the redirect's move to the title with correct quotes. – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2019 (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.

Artemis Lee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Artemis Lee

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_15&oldid=899364373"