Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2019.

Consolidated 22[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) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a trivial detail from the plot of the target and isn't mentioned in the article text. This search term could also conceivably refer to Consolidated Fleetster, which built a model C-22 for the US military. I would suggest either redirecting to there or deleting the redirect. Consolidated Airlines Flight 22 was also created by the same editor, but as that title cannot possibly refer to anything else I'm inclined to let it stand. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Maybe it was flight 22 of that fictitious airline, but there could be other Consolidated 22 uses. It's ambiguous with no clear dab targets. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 19 November 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.

How a bill becomes a law[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 Bill (law)#Enactment and after. As noted by the nominator, the current target for this redirect is Bill (United States Congress), except Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. Some editors favoured delete on the grounds that it's an encyclopedia, not a search engine. However, as noted by Thryduulf and Deryck Chan, it's a plausible search term, particularly since Google and DuckDuckGo have become very good at natural language search expressions. Patrons want to be able to enter something in the search bar and, after all, redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 02:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In its previous incarnation this was a redirect to Legislature, and was deleted four years ago at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How a bill becomes a law. It has since been recreated, pointing to a U.S.-only target. Other countries have bills and laws too, so this should either be retargeted somewhere better (e.g. Bill (law)#Enactment and after), or deleted per the prior WP:NOTFAQ consensus. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this redirect said, it's a catchphrase American schools use (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), so there will always be people looking for it.--Roy17 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:29, 10 November 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.

Cummie[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) 21:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is actually ever used as a term to refer to clouds. On the other hand, I have seen it used as a name in itself, as a nickname for people named Cummings or Cummingham, as well as slang for cum. Given its rather sparse usage in Wikipedia articles, I would lean towards deletion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 23:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see Wiktionary's page for "cummie" at here. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 00:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found one (possibly self published?) book about hang gliding that defines "cummies" as "cumulus cloud": Tales From The Wild Blue Yonder by John Quinn Olson. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as above. Unless you'd like a soft redirect to the wiktionary's version of cummie, we could do that. I would feel like it would be unorthodox making a disambiguation page on "cummies" since this isn't Wiktionary, and it just doesn't seem right with me. (although I can't find a reason as to why it doesn't feel like to me) –Aνδρέας talk | contributions 03:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete - Wiktionary calls it: "Affectionate form of cumulus formed by shortening and addition of -ie." Now, call me cynical but I don't think most scientific terms have recognized 'affectionate' forms. Now, there are quotes on Wiktionary (purportedly), mainly to hang gliding sources... but, due to the informal and mostly unsupported usage of the word, I think it's better for WP to just not have a page with this name. This is mainly because there is a more perverse meaning of the word, which, true, does not affect us, but it still feels weird for this to redirect to the cloud. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If keep, we'd have to disambiguate between Cumulus cloud and Semen. There's no purpose in disambiguating for an affectionate name. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly retarget. Nobody uses this term in a non-pornographic sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any usage as a shortened version of Cumulus cloud, despite that being plausible. Doug Mehus T·C 02:25, 17 November 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.

Sun Zhengyi[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) 21:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:FORRED: while the characters of Masayoshi Son's Japanese name could be read as Sun Zhengyi in Chinese, it's not clear that this name is ever used to refer to him, and the target article makes no special mention of China or Chinese-speaking locations. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This DDG search shows that the Softbank magnate isn't the predominant topic of this name transliteration, so I'm comfortable with deleting this per WP:FORRED. Deryck C. 13:27, 18 November 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.

Other Redskins sports teams[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. Participants are clearly divided over whether this is helpful or unhelpful, and it may be a matter of taste - different readers navigate differently. This discussion has not solved it. It seems reasonable to err on the side of maintaining any hypothetical links given it's a redirect from a page move. ~ mazca talk 10:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than what? This redirect is a circular reference to its target, and is thus confusing/misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a {{R from move}}, being the original location of the article and its title for nearly a month. Thryduulf (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:RFD#KEEP No. 3, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. I don't understand the "circular reference" argument.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bagumba: The circular reference argument is that we cannot assume what "Redskins" teams the "other" is meant to exclude, and the redirect will most of the time be searched for while the reader is viewing the target of the redirect. In other words, this redirect's wording assumes it knows which "Redskins" team the reader is currently looking up and/or comes to the reader's mind first. For previous precedents, see most of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 21. The only exception to this would be if the redirect was the official/alternate/etc. name of a subject, which it is not; at the present time, most of the entries at Special:PrefixIndex/Other are either the official name of the subject (and thus its a article's title) or an alternative name or spelling (and thus is a redirect.) This redirect is neither of the aforementioned cases, especially considering that it targets a list-like page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the page as "Other Redskins sports teams", which soon prompted a discussion that resulted in its move/rename, automatically creating the redirect.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WriterArtistDC: I don't understand how this is rationale to "keep" the redirect. Could you clarify? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rational is stated in the redirect after move box: "...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." While it is not likely that such links were made in this case, it is generally a good policy; pages can be moved without fixing all the links first.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...Okay, that's just the default text that appears with transclusions of {{R from move}}. That text will be there even when the leftover redirect is not helpful, such as someone having to revert move vandalism, such as moving "Good article title" back from a title such as "The world dyejugfghhffhzf)57$,". The transclusion of {{R from move}} alone doesn't explain why this redirect is a helpful/useful {{R from move}} that should remain, especially considering that the target article existed there for such a short time, since it has no incoming links in the article namespace, and since it contains the "other" problem I referenced above. In other words, just because a redirect is tagged {{R from move}} doesn't automatically make it immune from deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this one has the classic "other" problem, in that no sports teams of this name are excluded (ideally—if they are, they should be added). The potential problem here, to my mind, is its unlikeliness as a search term. Having been established, though, it may be in use. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as an unlikely search term (and somewhat confusing... it took me a few seconds to realize that "Other Redskins" was not a proper noun). The article was at this title for less than a month, so the {{R from move}} argument does not carry as much weight in this instance. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term and somewhat confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not serve a purpose. I understand generally keeping redirects from page moves (like if Denver, CO was moved to Denver). However, there is no reason to keep this redirect as there is no reason to think anyone will navigate to it anymore. Also, it is 'circular' since the Washington Redskins are treated as one of the teams named Redskins - the article no longer focuses on 'other' teams with that name. Hope that makes sense. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WriterArtistDC and I actually think this is a more natural name than its target. Doug Mehus T·C 02:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would not have created anything at this title, but I do find it plausible that a reader would want to learn about other teams with this nickname besides the Washington football team, and the latter's presence in the article would do them no harm. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 21 November 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.

Isotopic Ratio Outlier Analysis (IROA®)[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. Deryck C. 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old {{R from move}}, but I don't think the string with the registered trademark symbol is very plausible in the search bar or links. ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 10 November 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.

Guangzhou Province[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 Guangzhou (disambiguation). At issue was that this redirect to Guangzhou, a city in mainland China, would cause reader confusion, which, of course, should be avoided at all costs per RFD #D2 (and, arguably, Wikipedia's core principles). Subsequent to the relisting, additional editors and/or administrators favoured retargeting to the dab page, including Deryck Chan who said, as his second choice, "I think sending to Guangzhou (disambiguation) doesn't have quite the same adverse effect in terms of endorsing a misnomer than creating a disambiguation listing at 'Guangzhou Province,' because there is no mention of 'Guangzhou Province'." (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This phrase is plain wrong. No one is supposed to use it. Even if they mix up the city's and the province's pinyin, they would easily find out what they wanna see in the search results. Roy17 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep.Change redirect target Until we have an article about the province it is perfectly okay to redirect the province to the city. They are related, and redirecting to related topics is one of the main reasons for why we have redirects. See WP:REDIR. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul, the province where Guangzhou is located is not called "Guangzhou Province", it is Guangdong. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information and the link. Then I change my suggestion from "keep" to "change redirect target" to the existing article Guangdong and to add {{R from misnomer}} to the redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources to show that "Guangzhou Province" is a common misnomer for "Guangdong", or is Wikipedia the source of this confusion? In the absence of external sources, this would be the equivalent of redirecting Baltimore State to Maryland or Munich State to Bavaria, and should be deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:R#KEEP point 3: "They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article", this is one of the types of redirects that should be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keystone State is a real nickname. This redirect is false. It should not exist at all. Its existence adds more confusion than it helps with searching within wikipedia. Other pairs of cities and provinces/states they are in sharing similar names are not rare in East Asia—Fuzhou, Fujian; Guiyang, Guizhou; Haikou, Hainan; Suzhou, Jiangsu; Taipei, Taiwan—and I believe such cases exist in other parts of the world too, but no such redirect Cityname Province->Provincename should be created in the absence of attested mentions.--Roy17 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it aids searches. As you said, there are probably many more such pairs, and not all are covered by such a redirect, although some are (as this one). Obviously, someone must have found it useful to create the redirect, so unless it is real junk or is causing problems we should keep it per WP:R#KEEP item 5. By adding {{R from misnomer}} to the redirect we can ensure that the redirect will not be used for links and will not become part of the exported WP index, that is, it won't "spread further" in WP or into the net, it just aids searches.
As can be seen above, I was unaware of the Guangzhou-Guangdong relation, so if I would have been interested in Guangzhou and wanted to learn something about its surrounding, I might have entered "Guangzhou Province" into the search box and would have been happy to have been redirected to Guangdong. So, I would find it rather useful as well for as long as it is suppressed from indexes and is not in the way of another article. Can you elaborate in what way, in your opinion, the redirect causes confusion? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit (if any) is trivial, but a wrong redirect is a source of pollution. Creation was a mistake. The existence of the redirect only helps with a specific feature of wiki—the auto suggestion of the search box. Without the redirect you could still find articles in search results. The redirect itself is the confusion, when for example a user uses visual editor, intends to add a link and types it. The redirect suggests a valid link, but it is in fact a factually false construction that should not appear at all.--Roy17 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, there is an additional consideration. With the redirect, someone searching for "Guangzhou Province" is immediately transported to Guangdong, and could make a reasonable assumption that the two are synonymous. Without the redirect, someone who made the same search would see a Search results page, where Guangzhou would be among the top results (likely first). Upon clicking the article, they would see that the city is located in Guangdong province. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and WP:RFD#D2. This is a WP:XY wrong name of multiple things, but not the correct name of anything in Wikipedia. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a fellow Cantonese speaker, it is unsurprising that I agree with User:Roy17 about this redirect title being wrong. The discussion between User:Matthiaspaul and Roy above shows that even if we want to have an {{R from incorrect title}}, it is unclear whether we should point it to Guangzhou (city) or Guangdong (province), i.e. IP 59.149's point. It is best to reveal the search results (Special:Search/Guangzhou Province~), which gives enough hint to the reader that Guangzhou isn't a province, and the province that Guangzhou is located in is Guangdong. Deryck C. 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. There's also the Ecclesiastical Province of Guangzhou (see List of Catholic dioceses in China), but I don't think it's likely that anyone would call this "Guangzhou Province" without further qualification. Deryck C. 13:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deryck Chan's comment makes me suspect that the correct answer here is disambiguation as we have three things that could be referred to as "Guangzhou Province", none of which are the primary topic. That none of them are correctly called this seems irrelevant if they are actually called this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, reading Deryck's note made me think the same thing. Changing it to a disambiguation page sounds like a feasible (even a good) solution to me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please enlighten me on how an implausible term, by which name neither the city nor the province is known, could be disambiguated.--Roy17 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think that is a worse option than the status quo, since it would artificially give weight to on-wiki confusion (i.e., treating "Guangzhou Province" as a legitimate misnomer for "Guangdong"). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf and Matthiaspaul: I tend to agree with Black Falcon here. This DDG search shows that people who write "Guangzhou Province" are mostly confused amateurs, and if we created a disambiguation page we would give undue weight to the misnomer. Deryck C. 16:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice retarget Guangzhou (disambiguation). Deryck C. 17:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Guangzhou (disambiguation). Besides the above options, it seems possible a reader could mistakenly use "province" for either of the old prefectures. I've tagged the redirect with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there attested source that uses this phrase to refer to targets on that DAB?--Roy17 (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here it is in the title of a peer-reviewed article. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which target does it refer to? Is the same phrase used in the text?--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the context that it refers to Guangdong Province, and the correct name is used in the article itself. But surely you wouldn't support retargeting to the province on that basis. We need not catalog instances of every potential reader error; plausibility is a valid argument at RfD. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Guangzhou (disambiguation). If a term is incorrect but people use it, we keep the redirect. We can add {{R from incorrect name}} to classify the redirect. The reason we have stupid redirects for things like obvious miscapitalisations is that people can stumble upon them by methods such as quick typing or searching in the URL box. If a person is likely to use "Guangzhou (province)" to search for something related to "Guangzhou," we keep it because it's useful for them. Wikipedia does not prescribe. Wikipedia describes. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, I would agree, but is there any evidence that "people use it"? In the absence of such, this seems a case of Wikipedia inventing an incorrect usage rather than describing one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. See pageviews here. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 20:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Using pageviews to justify a redirect is circular reasoning. This redirect brings unnecessary confusion and meets WP:R#D2. Without the redirect readers can still find articles they expect in the search results.--Roy17 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but say the same about other redirects that can be easily found in treasure troves. Their targets can all be found if you search more carefully. Miscapitalizations, pluralizations, and more. If this redirect confuses, it would redirect to a page that disambiguates and takes away the confusion if Retarget is the discussion's result. Also, my reasoning is not that "this redirect has a pageview; therefore it should be kept". My reasoning is that it has a couple pageviews per day, meaning that some people are searching for it and finding it useful. See WP:R#KEEP: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to rephrase: is there any evidence that people use it outside of Wikipedia—i.e., that this confusion did not originate on Wikipedia and we are not simply perpetuating our own error? If we retarget, we would effectively be directing a search about "Guangzhou Province" to a page that contains no information about Guangzhou Province (because it does not exist). That would not be an issue if there was real-world confusion between "Guangzhou Province" and Guangdong—hence my question about real-world usage. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some results from searching for it: 1, which implies that a book's author messed up the name; 2, which shows that someone also messed up the name on a travel review; 3, which appears to say that a stock photo search of "Guangzhou province" exists; and 4, which is an academic paper abstract. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's enough to convince me. Thank you for finding these. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Guangzhou (disambiguation) per the discussion with UnnamedUser above. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Guangzhou (disambiguation) per the above. @Deryck Chan: if there is a minsnomer the best thing we can do is redirect to the page that gives the correct information, and in this case that is the disambiguation page as we don't know which target they're mistakenly misnaming. Wikipedia's goal is to educate and we don't do that by requiring people to be educated before being able to find the content that educates them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, that'll be my second choice. I think sending to Guangzhou (disambiguation) doesn't have quite the same adverse effect in terms of endorsing a misnomer than creating a disambiguation listing at "Guangzhou Province", because there is no mention of "Guangzhou Province" in Guangzhou (disambiguation). Deryck C. 17:54, 15 November 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.

Mainspace archive subpages[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to this recent RfD (see there for more detailed discussion). In brief: the article space does not allow subpages, so these titles are treated by the system as any other mainspace title and so for example show up in search results potentially getting in the way. – Uanfala (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Procedural note: I've tagged the redirects (except the ones for multiple subpages of a single article, in which case I've only tagged the last two), notified the creators (apart from those that are inactive or blocked), and checked for incoming links (none were found that could be relevant) and unusual history (only Batman in film/Archive 1 stands out, but there's nothing worth preserving there as the content was CSD-worthy). – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I don't object to deletion, but it would be helpful to address the reason why these pages exist in the first place, which was to make it easier to navigate to the article page. Perhaps we can edit the Template:Talk archive template that goes at the top of archive pages so that it includes a link to the article. I'd do it but doubt that I know how. Richard75 (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It seems that the sole reason for their existence is to avoid redlinks (and accidental clicks) in talk archives. However, this is neither a standard nor necessary practice (there is no reason to "archive" articles or create empty pages to avoid redlinks), and they make searches more difficult by unnecessarily cluttering the results (#1 of WP:RFD#DELETE).
  • Some of these redirects had G6 declined years ago (pinging Tavix who tagged the Burger King "archives"), but the reason given is the unclear desire to avoid redlinks and the possibility of deleting the talk archives: this is not a valid use of G8, so I also ask if the original tagging is still valid. ComplexRational (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding whether this is "standard practice" or not, I've seen this being done for years and years. It may not be recommended by any guideline, and it may not be very common, but it is certainly a longstanding practice that will continue no matter how many of these get deleted, because the underlying reason they're being created is not being addressed (as Richard75 said). The reason they exist is not so much to "avoid redlinks" (per se) but to "make the 'Article' tab functional" on talk archives. It can legitimately be argued whether this is a "good reason" to have such redirects, but the arguments that "there is no reason to 'archive' articles or create empty pages to avoid redlinks" strike me as, well, completely irrelevant. The search-results problem is a valid objection, however (IMO), so I have no objection to their deletion on this basis. (It would be nice if MediaWiki could "figure out" or "be told" where the "Article" tab should lead to in cases like this, but that's probably never going to happen.) - dcljr (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it would be best if this were handled by the mediawiki, but there are alternatives, like Richard75's proposal at Template talk:Talk archive#There should be a link to the article page too. As for the redirects in question, they are by no means rare: they are used on around 140 articles, and as fas as I can see they have been created by about a dozen (or two) distinct editors. They're not widespread though: comparing the number of search results for pages with titles containing "Archive 1" in the article and in the talk spaces, it appears that they're used in about 1 of every 270 eligible pages. – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this is better handled by MediaWiki if possible, or incorporated into the archive box at the top (as Richard75 suggests) – perhaps it can be done similarly to good article nomination or peer review pages, where there are links back to the article and main talk page on top. Navigating back to the article could certainly be easier, but I still don't feel this is a great way to do it (mainly because of clutter from these scattered redirects). (Sorry I wasn't very clear in my original post; while I still disagree, the reason for their creation is clearer now.) ComplexRational (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I agree with the commenters above that it would be best to address the underlying issue; however, that should not hold us back from deleting these malformed pseudo-subpage redirects in the meantime. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just wanted to point out that it may be unlikely to get this issue dealt with (in the way being discussed above) in the MediaWiki software itself, since developers would almost certainly argue that the current behavior is working as intended (i.e., not broken in any way) and that if we want the "Article" tab to lead to an existing page, that's precisely what redirects are for. It might be marginally more likely to get a MW feature that allows redirects to be marked as not to be used in search results — although I have no idea how easy it would be to implement such a solution. - dcljr (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical idea - Perhaps the treatment of this problem is a talk page notice? Is it possible to trigger an edit notice or edit warning upon attempted page creation for the pattern (Main:)*/Archive* ? As for the redirects at hand, weak delete. Deryck C. 12:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like an elegant solution that ought to be mostly effective as well as fairly easy to implement. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 19 November 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.

Trade and commerce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Trade and commerce

Kaimono[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These three redirects, created by the same editor and all pointing to Kaiju, are all inappropriate for slightly different reasons. Based on my rudimentary Japanese, kaimono (買物) means "shopping" and does not appear to have any relation with the subject. Kaibutsu (怪物) is the generic word for monsters; it does not specifically mean Kaiju, and on jaWiki it redirects to a disambiguation page. Goeshu is the Korean translation of Kaiju; as there is no particular affinity between Kaijus and Korea or the Korean language, this falls under WP:FORRED. The terms were added by the same editor to the lead of Kaiju; I have since removed them as they are not appropriate or useful. I would suggest that these redirects be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Kaimono is a solecism of Kaibutsu (物 can be read "mono", but not in that word), and in any case has other meanings as well; Goeshu is an incorrect transcription of the Korean reading of the characters for Kaiju (怪獸#Korean); Kaibutsu doesn't mean the same thing as Kaiju. In all cases, there's no appropriate target in English Wikipedia, and search results are the best we can do. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "kaimono" per solecism argument; ambivalent between delete or retarget monster for "kaibutsu" and "goeshu", since the monster article does discuss East Asian monster genres. Deryck C. 12:29, 18 November 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.

Diamond Colliery 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 speedy deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that this event has ever been known as the "Diamond Colliery Disaster", nor any indication that diamonds have ever been mined at that mine. I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this page because the Drummond Mine Explosion page says that it was also called the Diamond Colliery Disaster. The source that the article cites is this: click here. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither the article, nor the indicated source above calls this the "Diamond Colliery Disaster". It's called the "Drummond Colliery Disaster". -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 10 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_10&oldid=928034764"