Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2020.

Icy Wind[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#Icy Wind

Rare Candies[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#Rare Candies

Solfatara[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 with no prejudice against the creation of a disambiguation at Solfatara (disambiguation) and revisiting the question of arrangement once it exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solfatara is an alternate (Italian) name for a volcanic vent Fumarole where it has redirected since 2007. We also have an article on a Italian volcano Solfatara (volcano). There have been appropriate hatnotes on each. Jo-Jo Eumerus proposes this be a two-item dab instead. There are over 50 links to Solfatara, almost all which are correctly linking to the geologic feature, not the specific volcano. page views show the vent article gets many times the views as the volcano, and the redirect itself comparatively few. I think the redirect should stay as is. JJE says "since a) solfatara is just one of many terms for fumarole so the latter's page views will include a lot of hits for people who aren't looking for "solfatara" and b) both Google Scholar and Google assign equal (or higher for Solfatara (volcano)) priority to both meanings." MB 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you think the redirect is best targeted to fumarole as it currently is, what exactly is being proposed here? Mdewman6 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, this is a continuation of another discussion at Talk:Solfatara. I guess this is fine, just odd for the person arguing for the status quo to bring it to RfD, where this discussion should have started as I'm sure everyone realizes now. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, I momentarily forgot about the existence of RFD back then. Anyhow, since we are here now I'll say dabify per since a) solfatara is just one of many terms for fumarole so the latter's page views will include a lot of hits for people who aren't looking for "solfatara" and b) both Google Scholar and Google assign equal (or higher for Solfatara (volcano)) priority to both meanings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have mixed thoughts on this, as I think there are a variety of things to consider, and I appreciate the discussion. First, I would argue solfatara is usually used to refer to the ground/area where fumaroles are located rather than as a synonym for fumaroles themselves, or as a type of fumarole (sulfur-depositing), and I think this should be clarified in the hatnote and in the article, and the incoming links should be examined to consider whether directly linking to fumarole would be more appropriate. Nevertheless, absent other factors, fumarole would still be an appropriate redirect target for solfatara. In general, I tend to think the general term would be the primary topic over any particular place using the name. Also, the place in Italy carries the full Italian name Solfatara di Pozzuoli as indicated on the article, and it is usually described in English with a clarifying term, such as "Solfatara crater" or disambiguated "Solfatara (Campi Flegrei, Italy)". On the other hand, there are other less notable places that use the term, such as Solfatara Plateau described at Plateaus of Yellowstone National Park, where all the red-linked plateaus should really have redirects, which I will fix pending this discussion. There is also the Solfatara trail that goes across the plateau, Solfatara creek, etc.. So a disambiguation page seems needed in any case, the question here is whether it will be at Solfatara or Solfatara (disambiguation). All this is to say I am not sure what is best here. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2020 (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.

ITunes Chart[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) 21:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. There are many hundreds of occurrences of the term in WP articles (like "the song debuted #1 on the iTunes genre/country Chart"), although only a few are linked. I don't know what these charts are - probably just automated reports of downloads, or where they are published. But there is zero info in iTunes Store, so that doesn't seem like a helpful target. Maybe there is a better one. MB 05:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to include the variant redirects ITunes charts, ITunes chart, and ITunes Charts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of mention at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 14 December 2020 (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.

Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:CNRs and redirects were moved from a to-be WP:SPINOFF from their target. GPinkerton (now indefed) insisted, wthout discussion, afaic, that it's a WP:POVFORK. In violation of WP:RMCM, they unilaterally moved it to Draft:2020 France–Islamist controversy, then moved the latter to 2020 France–Islamist controversy, and then blanked and redirected all. Original page creator, Vice regent, later WP:CPMOVED the draft content to a subpage of his own userpage. The last redirect was automatically created by a AnomieBOT to account for the "–". According to relevant wording and description in reliable sources, as in [1] [2] [3], I believe the first title is misrepresented by the second and that it would better qualify as a spinoff than a subtopic. However, even if found legitimate, grammatically, I think the second title and its descendants lack a necessary plural morpheme to speak of the appropriate collective noun; that is, they should have been 2020 France-Islamists controversy, and so on. Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deleting all of them for now. They can always be recreated if and when the draft can be made into an article.VR talk 18:29, 7 December 2020 (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.

Intake, California[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. wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Inyo County, California and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Butte County, California both closed with a consensus to delete, there are no longer any entries for Intake, California at the dab page, so this should probably be deleted. Hog Farm Bacon 20:47, 6 December 2020 (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.

Ayesha Erotica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#Ayesha Erotica

Condominiums and the Jewish community[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Condominiums and the Jewish community

Scottish English Wikipedia[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Scottish English Wikipedia

TagTeam (software)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not even mention the subject. Source page was deleted via AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2020 (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.

Boris J[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Boris J

SW Cephei[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page, could potentially cause circular redirects. Nussun05 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SW Cephei was closed as "redirect" by user:MBisanz on 30 June this year. It was nominated for deletion by Sam-2727, and the only comment was a "weak redirect" from Lithopsian. Personally I would probably have relisted that and don't see consensus there for any course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: doesn't satisfy any obvious criteria for deleting a redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles shouldn't link to redirects that target that article (see WP:Circular redirect). Where an article includes redlinks, these should only be used for titles that are notable and likely to get their own article at some point. By definition (or at least according to a very short discussion), SW Cephei isn't notable enough for its own article, so don't link to it from the list. It is possible to reverse the result of an AfD discussion, but it is unusual and you wouldn't be thanked for doing it without a very good reason (eg. something very fishy in the process). Re-creating an article that has been deleted at AfD is also possible (unless it was salted) but again something to consider carefully. If such an article is substantially the same as the one that was deleted then it may be speedily-deleted, so be sure you can add something notable that wasn't previously there. Lithopsian (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to challenge the AfD closure, first discuss it with the closer. If that doesn't lead to agreement then nominate it for review at WP:DRV. I could easily see a DRV consensus overturning that closure to no consensus and/or relisting for more input. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just delink the circular redirect, and add an HTML comment about the existence of the redirect, with an anchor
{{vanchor|SW Cephei}} <!-- [[SW Cephei]] redirects here -->
It is a viable search term, and the list page has information on the topic, so it is a valid redirect. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (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.

The Cumberland News[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#The Cumberland News

Knighthood Village, Indiana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Knighthood Village, Indiana

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_6&oldid=1224826043"