Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2020.

The Opera Corpus[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. The more you know... (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear why these redirects target their current target. It is also unclear if this is an actual notable subject of some sort that we either already have an article for on Wikipedia (which I cannot find). Probably best to delete these as unclear as to what they define. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera says "In October 2006, the project began Composer of the Month, a monthly collaboration focusing on creating articles for operas by various composers in The Opera Corpus." (link in original) which suggests that the title should be a blue link to somewhere and (after a series of moves) the content that was at one time at these titles is now at the title; this edit also suggests that was the original intent. I'm not sure what the best option is here, but RHaworth, Michael Snow and Kleinzach have had input into the title over the years and I'll ping the Opera project on their talk page as well. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: FWIW, would you be able to answer my edit request at Talk:The opera corpus, considering you have responded to this discussion, you are an admin, and if the edit doesn't get done before 00:00 UTC (about 2 hours from now), my request may become broken? Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, this was the original title of the page, and I thought it should be moved to List of operas by composer, in line with other Wikipedia list articles. It appears to have appropriately ended up there. My general thinking on redirects like this is that no harm is done by leaving them in place. It would only matter if the redirect was blocking legitimate content (say, someone wrote a book with this title and we need an article about it), or if it was somehow misleading or offensive for the redirect to end up there. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification on this. If this is the rationale behind these titles, I still stand behind my rationale to have these deleted. The titles do not identify anything specifically at the target by their name, and I cannot see this naming convention to be used around the rest of the Wikipedia in the same fashion as a search term pattern. (Examples: The video game corpus, The rock instrumental corpus, etc.) In other words, it seems like these titles were created in the time when we were still trying to figure out what Wikipedia was going to be (back when there was significantly less enforcement of standards like WP:NOTFANDOM ... most likely because such standards didn't exist yet), and titles like these were artifacts from that time years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This name has a long history and is widely linked on talk pages and archives. I think this name was used for List of operas by composer for much longer than its current name. It ought to be kept for historical reasons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a helpful redirect, and also helps explain that it's not merely a list of operas by composer, but a more curated and precise compilation reflecting major and important works in all operatic genres by notable composers. It was known by this title for 10 years, and was only redirected in 2017. For the sake of WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Classical Music, at the very least, the redirects should be retained in my opinion, so that anyone searching for it (such as when wanting to add to it) or clicking on those links can get to the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...So, as I said above, this is a title that's a non-subject invented by Wikipedia. This reminds me of the discussion about the redirects Other nonmetals and Other nonmetal ... topics/titles that were invented by Wikipedia's editors which themselves are not real subjects. The fact of the matter is that I have yet to see a point made so far in this discussion that disputes my aforementioned point. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, and these redirects differ from redirects tagged with {{R with old history}}s (99% of the time looking like a subpage) or {{R from camelcase}}s since these don't fall under either of those accepted "historical"-type redirects. These redirects' names don't contain any adjectives or adverbs, making them seem like they are themselves masquerading as some sort of encyclopedic subject. And then afterwards, the reader arrives at a page that does not correspond in title in the least to the redirects. I mean, the redirects' translation could mean "opera body", and we don't have an encyclopedic article for any such subject. I mean, why should these redirects get preferential treatment just because their target article was at this location for years? It's akin to leaving a nonsense redirect in existence ... let's hypothetically say The Canine Animal just because the article currently at Dog was sitting there for over 15 years and no one corrected it. So ... I don't see or understand why these redirects would get preferential treatment over such a situation as the aforementioned hypothetical. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And if the links need correcting, that can quickly be fixed/resolved via WP:PIPEs and possibly WP:AWB. Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't those redirects and isn't like them, and knowledgeable editors disagree with your points. This is a valuable redirect whose title made sense (it wasn't/isn't merely a list of existing articles, but also redlinks of articles that needed/need to be created), and which is still what editors search for when they want to add or create new articles on opera composers or operas, in any opera genre. At this point your repeated arguing seems to be descending into WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BLUDGEONING, since there is clearly no harm in it and it is clearly helpful and it is clearly not being copied by unrelated disciplines. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm honestly trying to understand why these need to be exceptions, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BLUDGEONING don't apply. In fact, I'd honestly take your WP:BLUDGEONING claim to you being defensive and not being able to dispute my points, so I hope that's not the case. Either way, I still don't see my point properly refuted in the statement above, but rather enforces my concerns. But, eh, let's see how this plays out, I suppose. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...That, and I'm trying to understand how "knowledgeable editors" are allowed preferential treatment for pages/redirects to exist that do not serve the proper utility as a encyclopedic search term, and basically fall into WP:NOTFANDOM territory with their names ... in other words, I could see such titles on a Wikia/FANDOM site, but not here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • a) A corpus of operas is definitely a thing, just like it is in fields of literature and arts. b) We are arguing about a REDIRECT, not about an article title. The reason for the REDIRECT has been explained. All the usual arguments against deleting them apply. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are correct, it is a "REDIRECT", and as a "REDIRECT", I do not agree with their utility for the reasons I already explained above. If these redirects were in a non-article namespace pointing to other non-article namespace pages, I would not see these problematic, considering that in those namespaces, titles for pages and redirects that do not make sense to readers who have never used Wikipedia before are prefectly acceptable. To me, these redirects are akin to a secret handshake that one must find and/or learn to discover them (if they are not already aware of them), and even then, to the readers who discover these redirects, there is no way that this target or any other existing article on Wikipedia will result in anything other than a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • (nominator comment) Also, regarding "A corpus of operas is definitely a thing" ... okay, but the target is a list article, and not a "corpus" in the sense I think you are referring. The target is a list, and even with that, if the intent is to have these redirects target a list article, these redirects are ambiguous anyways. For one, Lists of operas exists, and the opera-related lists just break off from there. If anything, though I still support "delete" as the first choice for the reasons I already said, I guess I now support very weak retarget to Lists of operas as a compromise ... but either way, seeing that these redirects could now also be considered ambiguous retains my stance to oppose "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not a List(s) of operas; it's a comprehensive list of composers and their operas, in assorted genres. That equates to a corpus of operas. There's no secret handshake; it's a redirect of a large 10-year-old well-established article following a page move -- no one needs to know about or use the old title but it is retained as are all legitimate titles after a move so that it can be found if and when necessary. Please read WP:R#DELETE. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please stop yelling. And wow, you just pulled one of those acts I usually see editors do on WP:AFDs: Stating information that would have been super helpful to say at the beginning of the discussion that seems like some sort of trump card to make a nominator look dumb. (In AFDs, it's a surprise reference ... here, it's apparently explaining "...it's a comprehensive list of composers. That statement would have made this whole process 1000% simpler for everybody. Steel1943 (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the original title, and actually better than the present one, and who wants to type any "List of ..." when searching for something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 11 July 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.

`E4 Group`[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 21:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure someone would search for the company with this format (to be fair, this was the original title until it was moved to the correctly formatted title less than a day later, and this particular format appeared in the page until this revision from late June 2011), since it doesn't appear to be stylized that way. It might to be time to delete this unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 20:01, 10 July 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.

Wikipedia:T[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 WP:SNOW keep. The nominator is requested to nominate them separately. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be disambiguated because people could be looking for something different. Interstellarity (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, I think it is worth discussing all the single letter WP redirects from A to Z.
Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing this, Interstellarity. For some context, the reason this redirects is that WP:T used to go to Wikipedia:Tutorial, which has since been merged into Help:Introduction. I'll look into this later to see what might be best to do with it now. Does it have a lot of pages linking to it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sdkb. I checked out here and shows the first 5000 results. I found that the majority of links go to user talk pages. I think individual users linked this redirect in their own comments. I'd be happy to update some of the links if this doesn't close as keep. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the other letters and numbers (which are not listed). Interstellarity (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all. Some of these (e.g. WP:V) are among the most widely used redirects on the project, and even for those that are lesser used the ambiguity doesn't matter for shortcut redirects in almost all cases. Thirdly, we always need to be extremely careful about retargetting shortcuts as old discussions (often including linked mentions), edit summaries (which cannot be edited), etc. can be broken and long-standing shortcuts will continue to gain new uses with the intended meaning of their original targets even after retargetting. Finally, there is no chance that any discussion looking at all 26 of these redirects together will be anything other than either keep all or a trainwreck. If you have specific issues with an individual redirect, remembering that "ambiguous" is not a problem, then nominate them individually with a detailed rationale that explains why any change will outweigh the likely very significant issues retargetting or deletion would bring. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf since many of these are longstanding in regards to their current targets. However, if pages such as Wikipedia:A (disambiguation), Wikipedia:B (disambiguation), etc. have an established need to be created, I support that option. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all of these established redirects which are very harmful to change. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the original proposal was to disambiguate this shortcut, which is unhelpful because then it couldn't be used as a shortcut. I'm mildly surprised it doesn't go to the template info page (to match H:T). Either way, the nomination was doomed with the sidenote, because many single letter shortcuts are very well used so any such discussion would fail. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 11 July 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.

Take down america, weak america, kill america[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. 02:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, zero search results on Google (other than indexed Wikipedia-space pages). This almost seems like SEO and could potentially be interpreted as attack content. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a BLP violation to me. Delete with prejudice Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 17:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been reported both in WP:RS [1] and WP:ABOUTSELF sources like GNews [https://gnews.org/zh-hant/234991/] that Guo accused the Communist Party of China of trying to "搞弱、搞亂、搞死美國" (my translation: "weaken, confuse, and kill the US"), in those exact words. A correct version of the quote might be worth mention at the target per WP:WEIGHT, but I don't see any reason to retain this badly-capitalised, ungrammatical version of it. However, given that the quote is verifiable, I don't see that the creator of the redirect committed any WP:BLP violation here. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion in the article could be appropriate, but since English-language sources don't seem to cast any specific importance on the exact wording of the quote I don't think it would be an appropriate redirect even if better phrased as the phrase is rather vague in translation. I'm relieved to see that my concerns about attack content were unfounded. signed, Rosguill talk 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    English-language sources don't seem to cast any specific importance on the exact wording of the quote The most widespread translation in English seems to be is "foment chaos, foment weakness, and foment the destruction of America". Apparently this is the origin of the abbreviation 3F plan (which we deleted in May). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:ATTACK. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:26, 13 July 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.

Original content[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 Originality. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an equivalent phrase, used in a variety of contexts. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC) edited 01:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or delete - Could potentially point to Art, if anywhere. Otherwise delete and allow search to direct users to Wiktionary. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I retract that. Retarget to Originality which discusses this concept, with contrast to opposing ideas such as derivative work. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good suggestion, retarget to Originality. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 13 July 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.

Hamnuna Sabba[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 to encourage article creation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all circular redirects to Hamnuna, and should probably be deleted to encourage article creation. If someone can find a target that has more information about the subjects that could also be appropriate, but the internal search results that I came across just had brief quotes from the various rabbis that did not provide enough information about any of the R.'s Hamnuna to justify a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all to encourage article creation. A reader typing "Hamnuna" into the search box will find all the information we have at once; a reader typing one of the longer names will get Hamnuna as the top hit. Narky Blert (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create articles. Honestly, I'd be fine with sub-stubs of the information that's currently at Hamnuna, and then it can be cut down to a proper dab-like given name index. However, we do have a pretty good source in the public domain to work from if anyone has the time to flesh something out, courtesy of The Jewish Encyclopedia: Hamnuna I, Hamnuna II, Hamnuna Zuta, Hamnuna of Babylonia. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink on set index page. The set index page currently does provide a bit of info about each of these people, so the redirects actually take a reader from outside to a place where they will see useful information. Of course, creating an article will be better. Deryck C. 23:07, 26 July 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.

2019 Sochi FIA Formula 3 round[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 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion to promote article creation (WP:RfD#D10).
SSSB (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No point in having lasting circular redirects.Tvx1 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to promote article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom (to promote article creation). Also @SSSB: I've notified the creator on their talk page for you. A7V2 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 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.

Classical Irish[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. Early Modern Irish is not synonymous to Classical Gaelic. Needs a ton of cleanup on the Classical Gaelic. Early Modern Irish should become a full-fledged article of its own à la Early Modern English. Editors are requested to discuss about the deprecation of section redirecting at the appropriate WP:PUMP. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Classical Gaelic. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Classical Gaelic" refers to the early modern stage of Scottish Gaelic, not the early modern stage of Irish. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Classical Gaelic is self contradictory - it says it's a language used in Scotland and Ireland that is a "high register" of Early Modern Irish, that Scottish Gaelic diverged earlier than this language but that it developed into Scottish Gaelic. History of the Irish language though says "Classical Irish" and "Classical Gaelic" are synonyms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the practice of redirecting to a subsection of another article is a terrible idea. This practice should be deprecated, within article space.
    1. If a topic is worthy of a wikilink, it is probably worthy of a standalone article.
    2. The WMF software does not fully support wikilinks to subsections. Standard wikilinks don't break - unlike the ordinary URLs of ordinary webpages. When a webmaster changes the URL of pages all the third party websites that linked to that page using the old URL break. Wikilinks to articles, on the other hand, have redirects updated to always point to the article's current name.

      BUT this does not work for wikilinks to subsection. This redirect is a case in point. History_of_the_Irish_language had a subsection entitled "Early_Modern_Irish", when this redirect was created. It doesn't have one now. So, this broken redirect is an excellent example as to why the practice of redirection to a subsection heading should be deprecated, in article space.

      Note: ten other broken redirects point to the same non-existent subsection History_of_the_Irish_language#Early_Modern_Irish.

    3. A redirect to a subsection can't be put on our watchlists, and the [what links here] button does not work for wikilinks to subsections. Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      While I agree some of these things are problems, I strongly disagree that deprecation is the solution. The {{Anchor}} template exists for the purpose of maintaining working section links and use of it should be made more widely (adding it and updating redirects to sections might even be something bots could do?). There is (or at least used to be?) a tool that showed which redirects target which sections, including redirects to non-existent anchors. Finally, I disagree that every (or even most) instances of section redirects indicate the need for a stand-alone article - consider for example the countless redirects to sections of disambiguation pages and redirects like Grup d'Intervenció Policia d'Andorra (which targets a three-sentence paragraph about this subdivision of the Andorran police force) or Rainow Primary School (about which we have only a single sentence). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Practically no one uses the {{anchor}} template. I would be amazed if even one percent of the existing wikilinks to subsection headings was protected by an {{anchor}} template.
      • You wrote about a tool for managing wikilinks to subsection headings. I never heard of this tool. Are you sure it exists? Maybe I am missing something, but the only way I can imagine for finding every wikilink to a subsection, in article space, would be an exhaustive scan of the entire database.
      • I can't remember ever coming across a single instance of an {{anchor}} template, in my fifteen years of contributing here. I strongly suspect that {{anchor}}s are so poorly understood, and so poorly documented, that the rare instance of these anchors are simply ignored.
      • With regard to your example Grup d'Intervenció Policia d'Andorra little Andorra's part time SWAT team...
      1. Grup d'Intervenció Policia d'Andorra has no incoming links. No one is being sent to Andorra#GIPA because they clicked on a wikilink.
      2. Andorra#GIPA is not protected by an {{anchor}}. Hold the presses. The Andorra article does contain an anchor, for another subsection heading. It is the very first I have ever encountered in my fifteen years here.
      3. If Andorra had a serious terrorist or active shooter incident, where their SWAT team were called up, performed heroically, or failed tragically, RS would cover it, and it would merit a standalone article.
      • I asserted that if a topic was worthy of a wikilink it was worthy of a standalone article. Are you sure you think your two examples are actually worthy of a wikilink? Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I sure those examples are worthy of a wikilink? Yes, absolutely. If you want other examples: Coalbrookdale Ironworks, Name of Zimbabwe/Etymology of Zimbabwe, Aktogay railway station, and many others. I don't claim that {{anchor}} is used as much as it should be - indeed far from it - I am saying that using that is better than deprecating section links. Anchor templates should be added when a section with incomming links is renamed, not (necessarily) preemptively so non-broken redirects aren't an issue. The associated {{anchor comment}} should be used to document the anchor if necessary. Thryduulf (talk)
          • Sorry for jumping in, but I believe that the tool that User:Thryduulf was referring to is User:Dispenser's rdcheck, which used to be available from the What Links Here page until a few weeks ago. I don't entirely know what is going on with Dispenser's tools because they now redirect to Wikipedia (http://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Andorra ), but it still works if you use the old IP: https://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Andorra
          • FWIW, I don't agree with deprecation of section/anchor links and would likely support an automated solution for cleanup (adding {{anchor}} to preserve intent if a section name changes), an option in WP:Capricorn to auto tag a section, or even just {{R to invalid anchor}} to make a category of redirects needing to be fixed (which a bot could fill). I sympathize was your other technical concerns, though they may be able to be addressed in another manner. To truly get traction on resolving concerns one way or another, this needs to be discussed at a broader venue, as I just happened to stumble upon this discussion. —Ost (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thryduulf, Ost316, contributors have been making use of wikilinks to subsection headings, and redirects to subsection headings, occasionally, since at least 2008, maybe since shortly after the wikipedia has started. I understand that the practice has a small group of strong proponents.

            What I encourage you to recognize is that practically no one ever uses {{anchor}}s. I wrote, in one of my last messages here, that the single {{anchor}} in the Andorra article is the very first {{anchor}} I have ever encountered, in the wild. This tool says Template:anchor has been transcluded about 75,000 times. I'll bet if I played detective, and checked the handful of instances where {{anchor}}s were used, I'd find that they were only inserted by the handful of strong proponents.

            What I suggest this means it that the efforts of proponents of this practice to get everybody else to use {{anchor}}s has simply been unsuccessful.

            What do you know of the history of the Innocence Project? About fifteen years ago a Law Professor in Chicago, and his law students, did deep reviews of the cases on Death Row, in Illinois. The Governor of Illinois was a strong proponent of the utility of the Death Penalty. Yet, when he was asked to consider the evidence the Law Professor and his students were able to document, he could not deny that some of those on Death Row had clearly been innocent men, wrongly convicted, and that there were dubious elements in the cases of a significant fraction of the remaining men.

            IIRC, the Governor went beyond setting in motion the steps to release the clearly innocent men. He also gave a principled speech, about how, even though he believed in the Death Penalty, in principle, he was going to commute the Death Penalties of all the remaining men on Death Row. The Law Professor's team had convinced him that, in practice, the process that convicted and sentenced those men had been too flawed.

            I encourage you to follow that Governor's example, and acknowledge that even though you had been strong proponents of wikilinks to subsection heading, as implemented, in article space, it has been a failure, because only its strongest proponents understand that they should not be made without using the {{anchor}} template. Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            • This discussion really needs moving to a more appropriate forum, but the attempted analogy between section redirects and the death penalty is ridiculously overblown. For starters, section redirects and the anchor template are not the same thing (one merely resolves potential issues with the other), if a section redirect is broken the worst that happens is someone reaches the top of an article and has to find the relevant section themselves - hundreds if not thousands of orders of magnitude lesser consequence than the death penalty. There is no evidence that the death penalty has any benefits - even you can see the benefits of section redirects when not broken. Finally (for now) consider cases like Flossie Page - clearly not notable enough for a standalone article yet there is encyclopaedic content about her at Haven, Kansas#Notable people - what is your proposed alternative to a section redirect (to which this was just speedily retargetted with consensus) that will provide at least as much benefit to readers? Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 13 July 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.

Wreak Havoc[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 Krankhaus. Withdrawl/self-speedy close. I feel very silly for not thinking of checking track listings for their albums. Thanks, Tea2min and Narky Blert. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. The phrase "wreak havoc" is not mentioned anywhere on the target page, there is no history on this page to indicate the relationship (ie it was not a former article that was redirected), and finally there was no reason given on the edit summary for the original creation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:13, 10 July 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.

Reballing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Reballing

2021 Presidents Cup[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by Wjemather with the reason "Redirect for a non-existent future event, per WP:CRYSTAL (Presidents Cup postponed to 2022, see main article" FASTILY 07:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; per the above. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that it was held in every odd year from 2001-2019, was scheduled to take place in 2021 and appears in many pre-postponment reliable sources as planned for 2021 this is and will remain a very useful search term. If/when there is an article about the 2022 competition we can retarget it to the section of that article that notes it was rescheduled do to Covid-19, but until that is written the most useful target is the present one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It appears in reliable sources, and is a very likely search term. Readers may want to find out if it's still going ahead. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 11 July 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.

File:Krishna-And-His-Leela-movie-first-look-poster-.jpg[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 keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a first look poster, and I don't generally like preserving file name redirects. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT since this redirect is a {{R from move}} ... plus the WP:IDONTLIKEIT admission in the nomination statement that has no basis for why this redirect should be deleted per existing redirect policies. Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT; there's no need to go on a mission to 'clean up' the encyclopedia in this manner – especially when you haven't given any valid reason why. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. No benefit to deletion, especially given that it's an {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator has no idea whether deleting this redirect will break links on third party sites, so their personal dislike is irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 10 July 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.

Milker[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems ambiguous. Maybe it's just my agricultural background, but Automated milking and milkmaid are what come to my mind when I hear this, not the current target. Hog Farm Bacon 03:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure where it should targeted though agree that the current isn’t the best choice.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's slang for "breast", apparently. I've never heard it in the US; it sounds more like UK slang to me. See wikt:milker. I suppose it could be made into a dab page instead of a redirect, with links to breast, Automatic milking, and milkmaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Automatic milking. I read it as milking machine, which redirects there. I've never heard of it as UK slang for breast. Narky Blert (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original target (in 2007!) was Milk, and I would have reverted the change had I noticed it. However, Automatic milking seems acceptable; as does a dab page for both Automatic milking, and milkmaid. As a native UK English speaker, I have never heard it used as slang for "breast", and I note that the Wiktionary entry for that use lacks a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig (retarget to Automatic milking as a second choice). A person who milks animals (e.g. a milkmaid), an animal that yields milk (esp a lot or little, "a good milker", "a poor milker") and a milking machine are the definitions given in reliable sources. A quick look finds only urban dictionary having breasts as a definition. "Milkers" (plural) is something I think I've heard has slang for breasts, but not in the singular. I'll flag the Wiktionary entry for verification. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Thruduulf. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (changing !vote) per Thryduulf. I'd forgotten about the use of "good/bad milker" in relation to dairy cows. The best way to point readers to that meaning would be through a Wiktionary link on a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 11:54, 11 July 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.

Probably Ruby[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Bird-Wilson is the author of Probably Ruby, and there is a link on her article to Probably Ruby. Since someone made Probably Ruby a redirect, it is circular.

In my opinion it is far far better for wikilinks like this to be left as redlinks, until someone actually starts a real article. A redlink shows contributors the article hasn't been written yet, where a redirect hides this. Redirects like this are routinely used in the same sentence as a direct link to the author's article, which sends readers to the same article twice. Geo Swan (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but remove the circular link at target page. IMHO, redirects from the title of a work to the work's author are generally useful (well, they are better than nothing). Circular links usually are annoying. – Tea2min (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Useful? No, they are confusing. They confuse contributors who see the blue link, and are fooled, so they don't recognize that the article has yet to be written. Fixing the circular links is only a temporary measure, as these redirects are so confusing it is practically guaranteed that new contrbutors will be fooled, and introduce new circular paths. Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a plausible search term and leads to useful information. Circular links should be removed per WP:SELFRED unless they're tagged {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these titles are turned back into redlinks, anyone who searches for any of them will see the article on the author right at the top of the search results. This is true whether they use google or the wikipedia own search feature. So, "plausible search term" is not a convincing argument for retaining these redirects, given the confusion they invariably cause. Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects like these can usefully be used to populate categories. Narky Blert (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had gone ahead and boldly removed the circular link on Lisa Bird-Wilson#Works. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 08:45, 10 July 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.

Bu duh[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 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is associated with the target. All of the few web search hits I can find are derived directly from this redirect. Even supposing that this is meant to match part of the beat, it's so generic as to be useless as a search, so it should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All of the usage I can find is for onomatopoeia of a generic drumbeat. Hog Farm Bacon 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in WP, or apparently anywhere else meaningful. Narky Blert (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 15:09, 10 July 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.

Noted[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 Bauer New Zealand. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The motivation is apparently that Bauer owns the noted.co.nz website, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article so a reader won't be helped. Also (though this isn't a requirement for deletion), they stopped publishing in April. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target, so no useful info for anyone who follows the link. Horribly ambiguous, and nothing to disambiguate. It's bad enough editors linking to famous, legendary, various, and so on, we shouldn't offer them other vague adjectives to play with. Narky Blert (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've fixed the omission and "Noted" is now mentioned in the target article. Schwede66 00:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this per Schwede66‘s keep vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to the Bauer New Zealand section of the target per Schwede66. And also move the hatnote to that section. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 08:42, 10 July 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.

🍜[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#🍜

Hypersine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Hypersine

SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_10&oldid=985505724"