Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2020.

NetHack/Amulet of Yendor[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. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Graham87 Looking at the edit history for this redirect, can you confirm, expand on, and/or clarify what Steel1943 means? If the history has been appropriately transferred to NetHack, as I think is the case, I'm fine with a delete; otherwise, I concur with "strong keep" per Glades12. Pinging S Marshall here for his expertise on WP:ATT and history merges. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...No, the history should not be merged into the target page since no WP:CUTPASTE move happened. The edit history in the nominated redirect represents a batch of text removed from the target page in this edit, but then was restored the same day in this edit. In fact, here's the edit that resulted in the nominated redirect being converted to a redirect, and here's the original version of the redirect and the revision before it was converted to a redirect. So again, there is no reason to retain the edit history in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Graham87 on this one. Where there's a good argument to retain the redirect, as there seems to be in this case, we don't need to take any special action to preserve the history.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, I still think the redirect is useless as a search term and I don't yet see any strong argument to retain any content at this title' including the redirect, but I have offered an idea about the edit history's location since other participants in the discussion feel that the edit history should be retained... Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete with Thank you to Steel1943. Looking at the diffs on the subject redirect, it looks like there was a short poem or something from Antone, the redirect's creator, but that was in no way used at NetHack, correct? If I have that wrong, let me know and I'll change my !vote. But, history merges aren't just for cut and paste moves, correct? My understanding is they can be necessary in many other cases, such as when two people create the same article at the same time or at different times (sometimes in different namespaces) and they're subsequently amalgamated and/or redirected. Doug Mehus T·C 01:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: @Dmehus::, I'm really glad you notified me of this nomination, since I actually created the redirect. The page is listed at my user subpage at User:Graham87/Page history observations. As it says there, the actual merge edit is this one. It doesn't matter whether the text is still there ... as long as it was put there at some point, the redirect should be kept. Also, history merges should really only be used for cut-and-paste moves, especially where parallel histories could be created. Graham87 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Restore History Revisions circa 2003 to NetHack per Graham87. What a mess. It does look some missing attribution is a problem here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: Thanks, but maybe I wasn't clear enough ... there's nothing to restore now and nothing that needs to be done with the history. everything's fine as it is. Graham87 04:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Are you just satisficing because it's not worth restoring the actual history revisions, or have they been restored to NetHack and/or Talk:NetHack? If they have been restored, why do we want to keep this redirect again? Doug Mehus T·C 04:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I restored/imported them to "NetHack/Amulet of Yendor", which is exactly where they should be. Graham87 04:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Oh, well, I'd actually prefer they be at NetHack, since those editors contributed to that article. This would eliminate the need for this redirect. So, I'll leave my !vote as is, as there's a definite need for keeping the revisions—ideally at NetHack but am fine with at this redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 04:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Again, we don't normally do that. See the "parallel versions" section of the guide on cut-and-paste moving (I probably should've linked it above). A move to another title as that page mentions would be my second choice for this redirect, but my first choice is still to leave it as it is. Graham87 04:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Okay, thanks, the redirect is somewhat implausible then. If you're fine with keeping the history attached to a redirect, what above moving it, without leaving a redirect, to something like NetHack/HistMerge or, alternatively, History preservation for NetHack? This would accomplish the same thing. Nevertheless, I don't see how we can have anything other than a "keep" result here. Doug Mehus T·C 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Yes, I said I'd be OK with moving it as a second choice ... but the redirect titles you suggested are even more implausible (the Amulet of Yendor is a huge part of the game NetHack). If it was moved, the talk namespace would be a better location ... something like Talk:NetHack/Old history. Graham87 06:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Oh geez. If this edit history is going to be kept, please move the edit history away from this title to a title that is useful as a search term for its target and is not in the "Talk:" namespace. One, this title is useless as a search term, and for two, edit history that is moved to the "Talk:" namespace, as I have found in my many years of "gnoming" forever gets lost in obscurity since it's not a standard location at all for readers to find this stuff. Ya'll want a title to move this edit history to that could meet these requirements?: Try Amulet of Yendor (NetHack). Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to another title, without leaving a redirect, and I have no preference as to what the title of the moved redirect page should be. The one proposed by Steel1943 is as good as any and the rationale about/against moving to Talk: namespace makes sense so I would modestly prefer keeping it in the Main: namespace. Although consensus likely exists to keep the redirect where it is, to maintain good editor-to-editor relations and to having unanimous consensus, other than the nomination, this is a reasonable approach. Doug Mehus T·C 14:51, 20 January 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.

Straight Road[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 27#Straight Road

Stair Falls[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Stair Falls

Suberb Owl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Suberb Owl

U.S.A.)[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 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo and unlikely search term. I see no reason why a user would add a single parenthesis to the end of this term. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 19 January 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.

Bev Collins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Bev Collins

Unexpected Love (2019 film)[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 21:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not released in 2019, and release date is TBA. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects from release dates which never happened are misleading and can be confusing. Narky Blert (talk) 07:32, 20 January 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.

Mehul Garg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Mehul Garg

Political Department[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 21:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and unhelpful redirect to an overly specific example. "Political Department" can refer to many things, 1) Department of Political Science at many universities; 2) any of the pages listed at General Political Department; 3) Politische Abteilung, and probably more that I can't think of right now. buidhe 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:PTM. "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them." Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 20 January 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.

Timoðy[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 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in a redirect with an eth in the middle to a DAB page; not least because eth is a voiced 'th', not the unvoiced 'th' in 'Timothy'. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Incorrect foreign spelling. buidhe 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absent concrete, reliably sourced evidence that "Timoðy" actually exists as a real spelling variant of Timothy, we don't require a comprehensive program of eth-redirects for every title in Wikipedia that happens to have a "th" in it. But even on a Google search, literally all I'm finding is a couple of Timothys trying to be clever in their Instagram usernames, which is not evidence that "Timoðy" is a real thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom and Bearcat. Cavalryman (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible error. Note that Timoþy (which would be more correct) does not exist. Glades12 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 22 January 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.

List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club

Wikifiddling[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 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird redirect, the concept of "Wikifiddling" doesn't seem to be described anywhere. Hog Farm (talk) 07:00, 19 January 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.

Weird redirects to Wikipedia[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 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and implausible misspelling Hog Farm (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – neither have any mainspace links and per nom both are unlikely search terms. Cavalryman (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete – these are seemingly nowhere in use, and may be jokes. ComplexRational (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 22 January 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.

8-Bit Theater redirects[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 Magipedia and Speed of Swords, redirect Swordchuck and Swordchucks to List of 8-Bit Theater characters#Fighter. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 06:49, 19 January 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.

Dark Land[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 Darklands. There is unanimous consensus here that the existing subject redirect Dark Land is unambiguously ambiguous to target to a specific target. It is far too generic to redirect to a section of an article on fictional Middle-earth geography. While a strict nosecount is evenly split in terms of deletion/retargeting, it's entirely a plausible alternate spelling and form of Darklands, no alternate targets have been suggested, and it's incumbent upon us to consider reasonable and plausible alternatives to deletion. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this term is mentioned once at the target article, this term is a generic one that can't be unequivocally reduced to a Middle-earth context. This redirect does have history that was merged to another article, but that other article was then redirected, so the content is no longer extant on Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 04:55, 19 January 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.

Sîr Ninglor[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) 14:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The version of this redirect without the diacritic was deleted in a bundled nom at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_9#Obscure_Middle-earth_redirects. I see no reason why this one should stay and the other shouldn't. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 19 January 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.

Malduin[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) 14:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and only discussed in the context of an ancient Earl of Lennox who's name is referenced individually at a handful of pages. Was a stub article at one point, but the content of that stub seems to have been transferred between articles until the eventual result was redirected to Middle-earth#Geography. Since the original content is no longer extant, there shouldn't be any authorship or licensing reasons why this redirect needs to be kept. Hog Farm (talk) 04:45, 19 January 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.

Lake Nenuial[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Lake Nenuial

Wikipedia:TALKPAGECLUTTER[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 21:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the name itself, this newly created shortcut is too argumentative. Concerning what it points to, it is the Purpose section of Wikipedia:Talk page layout which is merely background and contains no prescriptive guidance; it is very unlikely to be usefully linked to in conversation. Bsherr (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I don't see how this is argumentative. Talk page clutter exists. The guidance there is useful to organize it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved in a recent ANI discussion about cosmetic Talk Page edits by the creator of this redirect, which I don't feel was resolved particularly well. I think that a deletion discussion about this redirect risks being overshadowed by that dispute. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral - I created it, but if people don't find it helpful, then that's fine. I think it is helpful, and would happily support a better target (maybe just the whole page itself and not the specific section). As Headbomb said, not sure I see how it is "argumentative" though. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the targeted section does not actually dictate any policy so I suspect the redirect is unlikely be linked. Cavalryman (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete per WilyD's convincing argument below - was Keep per Headbomb and retarget WP:TPC to the same target as WP:TALKPAGECLUTTER, as it will be more useful as a shortcut to a policy or guidance page than a service award page. Doug Mehus T·C 23:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Headbomb and Bsherr, are you okay that I added WP:TPC to the nomination? I think it's a useful, highly related retargeting. Doug Mehus T·C 23:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ideal. The prior commenters have not spoken on it, and the way it is added makes it appear I propose to delete it. I think it would be better as a separate nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr Okay, feel free to remove it if you want. If Headbomb, Alfie, and/or Gonzo_fan2007 reply before closing that they 👍 Like that idea, we can maybe add it back in? Doug Mehus T·C 02:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so long as it's clear. --Bsherr (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would need a separate RFD, but longstanding shortcuts aren't changed unless there are major issues with them, because changing where shortcuts points means also having to change everything that uses the old shortcut. A page being 'policy' vs a page being an internal award thing has no real bearing on anything here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Fair enough re: separate RfD, though I disagree that long standing shortcuts can't be changed. We've changed a few in the past few months. Doug Mehus T·C 03:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can, you just typically need a strong case for it. Not sure that's the case here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think one RFD at a time is enough. If WP:TPC is that much of an issue Dmehus, it is easy to nominate separately here at WP:RFD. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, I think it's fine. I don't see canvassing on the part of Headbomb as he had no idea what I would support. I support your modifications, but we should take something this big to WP:VPR or WP:VPP, or at least notify them. Doug Mehus T·C 03:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coherent idea WP: links like this inevitably get used only to try to give bad arguments some appearance of policy backing when people can't be bothered to click through. It's existence, then, is a problem per WP:CIVIL ;) WilyD 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WilyD, which part of WP:CIVIL are you citing? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, that kind of goes to the point I was making - linking titles in place of making arguments generally makes interactions less productive. CIVIL does emphasize to some extent the importance of explaining yourself and making coherent arguments. Argument by WP:SOMEDESCRIPTIVETITLE undermines that, notability because people often assume what they thing a policy/guideline/essay might say in those cases, rather than reading it, and end up talking past one another. This is probably a particularly bad case because it'll encourage calling one anothers overly long explanations "clutter", which is quite dismissive. This is of course my somewhat subjective experience, but if it's just me, my argument won't carry the day anyhow. WilyD 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WilyD has provided a much better explanation for what I meant by calling this shortcut argumentative. That's the issue precisely. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. While the tiny section does mention the phrase "template clutter" (which is similar but not as broad), the section does not actually address "talk page clutter" as a general matter and serves only into introduce some background info on why the later and quite specific sections were created. That is, anything that can be cited as actual advice is in section below this target, each of which already has shortcuts that are less designed to hand-wave in a negative manner with the thought-terminating cliché effect that shortcuts to WP:P&G pages and major essays so often have. I'm of the opinion that standoffish-seeming shortcuts should not be used except when the target makes it clear the intent is to be humorous and advises against using it otherwise (e.g.: WP:HOTHEADS and what its lead says; I also went to some pains years ago to changes WP:DIVA to WP:HIGHMAINT and change the content of the page from an attack on people who threaten to leave the proejct, to a page on advice on why not to engage in such antics. We need more cleanup like that, both as to essays with shitty tones and non-humorous bad-attitude shortcuts, and P&G pages that have such shortcuts, especially if we already have evidence the shortcuts are being misused.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_19&oldid=937836589"