Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2021.

Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 21#Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese

Tridemist china[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 21#Tridemist china

Gender and Sexual Minorities[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. Editors were divided between retarget proposals, keep, and delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the term usually refers to LGBT people, I think Sexual minority is probably a better redirect (and probably should be lowercase) Bangalamania (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just had a look and there seem to be a lot of similar redirects using the GSM acronym or similar to link to LGBT. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As is, Sexual minority (SM) seems to have been experiencing an identity crisis since 2015, when GSM and its variants were first introduced to the article. Here's a diff comparing that first edit to the current revision. Much has been added about sexual minorities and almost none about GSM. LGBT discusses the origin of the term GSM and some modern usage, but SM does not. Then again, LGBT gives SM "main article" treatment in its GSM section. In the SM controversy section, one of the major criticisms of the term sexual minority is from gender minorities, and no mention is made of the GSM term at all. These are all fixable problems, but it seems there are at least two possible fixes:
    • Add more about GSM to the SM article, possibly enough so that there should be a move or split to Gender and Sexual Minorities, or
    • Keep SM about its titular topic and keep LGBT as both the repository of GSM info and the target of this redirect.
    Two key questions for deciding between the options are "Is there enough verifiable content out there to justify a standalone GSM article?" and "How would we prevent a GSM article from being a content fork of LGBT?" Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be the first option (as you say, the LGBT article does say that SM is the main article on the subject, and the term does have a broader scope than LGBT(QIAP+) – and intentionally so), although I am aware that the term "gender and sexual minorities" or its variants may not have wide enough currency in reliable sources to justify a change in the article's title, and I'm not sure how much content there is to justify a separate article. It is worth noting that the criticism from trans/gender minority groups seems to be unreferenced.
Possibly adding to the confusion here, but articles on sexual minorities in specific countries on Wikipedia (Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka, Sexual minorities in Japan) seem to use the term to refer to trans people too, although both of these countries are non-Western and so may have different ways of categorising gender and sexuality. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As yet another confusion, "sexual minority"/"sexual minor" can refer to someone/the state of being below the age of consent for sexual activity. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY and WP:RFD#D1. "Gender minority" and "sexual minority" describe related, but distinct, topics. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gender and Sexual Minorities" is an actual medical term, though, so XY doesn't really apply. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the number of books and scholar hits for the exact phrase it's abundantly clear that WP:XY and WP:R#D1 are not at all relevant here. I'm not sure what the best thing to do with the redirect is, but deletion for those reasons is not it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, struck my ill-informed comment. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sexual minority. I see that scholarly work on this topic often refers to "sexual and gender minority" rather than the arrangement here, and while we don't have a redirect for that arrangement, it is listed as an alternate name for the study of the topic covered by the sexual minority article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is not currently being used in articles according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Gender_and_Sexual_Minorities. Also, we have no identified sources establishing this as a term or phrase in use. Without citations and without usage I say delete without redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    we have no identified sources. Except for all the Google Books/Scholar references that Thryduulf mentioned... -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lede of sexual minority notes that it primarily refers to "LGB" individuals. The inclusion of "gender" here is important, as it extends the term to transgender and other non-cisgender/non-gender-conforming people. This is a term in current usage in the LGBTQ+ community, and I've only ever heard it used as a synonym for LGBT(Q)(+). Also, procedural note: Gender and Sexual Minority exists, redirecting to the same target. I hesitate to list it when two people have already !voted, but as a common-sense matter, the close here should probably apply to it as well. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I wasn't involved I'd relist this and add that redirect to the discussion at the same time. I encourage the closer to consider that option. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current target is more representative of gender than the proposed target. Relist in future after there is sufficient progress on the fixes proposed by Firefangledfeathers. - Jay (Talk) 08:10, 13 June 2021 (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.

Moues[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 20:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See related nominations of Trcuk and Baketsball. WP:AFFINITY. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very likely to cause confusion. Not sure what a moue is, but if that's what someone is looking for they will be very confused when they wind up at mouse. Not a common misspelling that we should redirect. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard about the word Moues. It definitely leads to confusion. Hayleez (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (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.

Sea trade route[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 redirect 1, 2, 3 to Sea lane and 4,5 and 6 to Maritime transport..

Consensus could have been firmer on the latter, but after two relists I think that this is as close as we can expect to occur, and no one has exppressed support for the status quo signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that sea trade routes were exclusive to Kedah. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree this needs retargetting, but I'm not sure what the best target is. Sea lane is probably the most focused, but it's a thin article that doesn't deal with everything someone may be looking for. Trade route is more comprehensive but not focused on sea routes, and as the primary organisation is chronological maritime routes are covered in multiple sections so it wouldn't be possible to refine it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a number of conflicting redirects here: maritime trade route, maritime trade, ocean trade, and sea trade have three different targets between the four of them. I've added all four. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of chronological stuff, which isn't helpful for these redirects. But surely there's an article to be written here about sea trade. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 2, & 3 to Sea lane, which I think covers this topic fairly well. That article should probably link to Trade route § Predominantly maritime routes, but that's fixable easily enough. 4, 5, & 6 to Maritime transport, although I'm less sure on that one. I agree with J947 that there's room for an article (or two) here. But they can be {{r with possibilities}} for now. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,2,3->Sea lane, 4,5,6->Maritime transport per Tamzin. A dedicated article on maritime trade exists between those two articles, and Maritime transport links to Sea lane already. CMD (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the Sea lane and Maritime transport targets. Sea lane is not WP:Globalized, merely covering early modern and modern routes from the western perspective (specifically only from the Age of Sail). It's a "definition" article, mainly just saying what a sea lane is, not what historical or existing sea lanes there are. Trade route is still the most comprehensive target for all of them, if you're asking for topics on maritime trade, regardless if it also covers trade by land. Maritime transport deals with the vessels used in modern shipping, not maritime trade in and of itself. People who use those search terms are looking for both historical and modern trade routes by sea, as well as methods by which trade by sea is/was accomplished. A target which doesn't cover those is insufficient. The best option would probably be a disambiguation listing, at the very least: Trade route, Sea lane, and Maritime transport.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 2, & 3 to Sea lane. While I agree that the Sea lane article is undeveloped, it seems to be the best fit, and I would hope that this discussion would encourage that development, rather than more carping. On the other hand,I agree with OBSIDIAN† in that I see no role for Maritime transport as a target here. Sea lane correctly has Trade route as a see also entry. As to the last three (4, 5, & 6) trade items, I believe they are correct as is (given current articles), but are a very separate discussion. A comprehensive article on Sea trade aka Maritime trade is clearly called for. The Maritime history article is extensive, but does not focus on trade, although, other than fishing, trade (and those who prey on trade) seems to have been the major focus of peacetime maritime activities. Development of a focused Maritime trade article could be assisted by books like A history of early Southeast Asia: maritime trade and societal development, 100-1500; Rome and India: the ancient sea trade; Sánchez's Merchants and trade networks in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, 1550-1800 connectors of commercial maritime systems; The emporium of the world: maritime Quanzhou, 1000-1400; Emporia, commodities and entrepreneurs in Asian maritime trade, c. 1400-1750; Sewell's Grain: carriage by sea; International shipping: an introduction to the policies, politics, and institutions of the maritime world; Reeves's A history of the law of shipping and navigation and Rivalry for trade in tea and textiles: the English and Dutch East India Companies (1700-1800). Fugazza's Maritime connectivity and trade covering 2006-2012 would provide a recent perspective.  --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bejnar: I'd like to point out that only your redirect linked to Sea lane, and it is the only one of the entries that do not have the word "trade" in it, and thus it's an outlier. None of the alternative names for "Sea lane" also contain the word "trade". All the redirects were created by different people, yet three originally linked to Trade route (including mine), which is a pretty good indication of what the consensus of the context is. To put it simply: A sea lane, is not only used for trading. A trade route is. If a disambiguation is not viable, I'd actually rather go with all of them to Trade route, except Sea route. I would also like to emphatically stress that I'm not carping, haha. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is required primarily for #4, #5, and #6. There seems to be a consensus to point #1, #2, and #3 to Sea lane.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just here to comment that Maritime trade should definitely be an independent article.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:29, 12 June 2021 (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.

Oulo[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. Looks like the main topic(s) do not have article(s) yet, so deleting to encourage creation (and later disambig, should all go well) Nabla (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, mainly a typo for "Oulu". Created twelve years ago by a user who was since blocked indefinitely for vandalism. The redirect had only four incoming links, three for the city of Oulu and one for an entirely unrelated Tatar ruler. I have fixed them all. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 22:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Does Finland have any other place named Oulo? A Google search for "Oulo Finland" returns 84,000 results and looking at the few initial results, it does mention Oulo, Finland as a place. Jay (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. There is no such place as "Oulo" in Finland. Google returns results because it's a typo for "Oulu". JIP | Talk 06:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's such a common typo, then it's worth Keeping. Jay (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, Disambig to the Finland and Burkina Faso places, and the Tatar ruler per my comment below. Jay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oulo is the name of at least one populated place in Burkina Faso (fr:Oulo has it in Sahel Region, at least one other source has it in Boucle du Mouhoun Region ]https://www.mindat.org/feature-2356900.html]) and a region/place and forest in Sudan ([2][3]). The primary topics in search results though are for a British clothing/yoga accessory retailer and a Lebanese app (although I don't think either are notable based on a first look). If the African places didn't exist then I would be happy to support this as an apparently common misspelling but not in the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it can be retargeted to Dori Department, where the Burkina Faso village is now mentioned, and a hatnote added for Finland -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search for the other 19 mentions of "Oulo" in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the 19 mentions, I fixed one more mention of the Finland place. The tatar ruler is Emperor Shizong or Wulu but referred by Ezra Pound in the Cantos as Oulo. Of the remaining, I see article potential for 2 mentions - the Burkina Faso village that 67.70.27.180 added and the Cameroon artist Idy Oulo. Jay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation for the town in Burkina Faso. dudhhrContribs 20:59, 14 June 2021 (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.

Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development

U$C[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. Discussion was relatively evenly split between proponents of keep, delete, and two retarget suggestions. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect U$c was deleted for a similar reason. This redirect should also be deleted, the same reasons apply. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The owner of all: Can you please provide those reasons here or at least link to that discussion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • U$c was deleted five times from '05 to '06 under a definition of vandalism that I'm not sure would stick anymore. This appears to be a moderately popular insulting name for USC. If we look to other redirects of this sort (Micro$oft, $ony), they seem to redirect to Satiric misspelling or specifically its subsection § Currency signs. Not sure what I think we should do with this one yet, but thought I'd just drop this information here for now. As to the U$c redirect, I personally wouldn't accord any precedent to 15-year-old speedies. If this is kept, that redirect would be fair game to recreate (although perhaps not necessary to). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some discussion where the consensus on this issue has changed? While "U$c" specifically was deleted in 2006, I can cite an example such as "Thug U" (redirecting to Florida Gators football, or Miami Hurricanes football) that was deleted in 2013 because it was treated as vandalism at that time as well. [4] ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could also be any of the other USC disambiguations, including multiple colleges as well as United States Congress. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator doesn't provide a reason for deletion. Can you please clarify? ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom was saying it does not have a mention in the target article. If the result is keep then it should have an R without mention tag. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to USC. Could indeed be a sneering reference to any of those. These kind of references that are easily understood by target audiences but not by the reader who chances upon it are imo some of the most useful redirects out there; I use them all the time to quickly identify what sources are talking about. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTCENSORED, if it is a satiric mispelling because of the high cost of USC, then it is working properly, as it is apparently moderately popular. If there are other USCs that are not University of Southern California which also use this criticism/satirical spelling, then setindexify, and show which USC values use this alternative spelling. So, either keep as is, or SIA, do not delete. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only place that this should point is Satiric misspelling#Currency signs, mirroring Micro$oft and similar, and per the general principle that non-neutral terms best point to discussion of the term itself, not the subject; see, e.g., Crooked Hillary. However, per WP:RNEUTRAL non-neutral redirects should only exist if a term is well-established, and the lack of mention at the logical target makes me think that this term is not in fact well-established. Delete unless mentioned at that article, with no prejudice against recreation if it is mentioned subsequent to a closure as delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL which states, Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. sacbee.com, latimes.com, latimes.com UW Dawgs (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to USC per 92.24.246.11. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Satiric misspelling#Currency signs, or Delete. Verifiable but no significant usage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A redirect should point to the article that the user is expecting to get to. If someone types "U$C", it is extremely likely that they are looking for University of Southern California. For that matter, Micro$oft and $ony should be retargeted to Microsoft and Sony, as those are the articles that someone who types that in is likely looking for. Mlb96 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know that the current target is what users are most likely expecting? Google search refuses to distinguish between "U$C" and similar strings like "U/C" and "U-C", the former of which is so prevalent it overwhelms everything else on a normal search, "U-C" is similar in a books search. On Wikipedia's search engine the same thing happens, but here it's "U.C" that gets in the way. No method of getting around it I've thought of has worked - quotation marks, "verbatim" setting, doubling the $, backslash escaping, etc. all either make no difference or find results instead for "UC", "c/u", "U.S.C." or other irrelevant things. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would anyone looking for (whatever) USC type U$C instead? Even in the unlikely chance that they do (in hope that there is an atual article maybe?) and they get nothing, aren't they more likely to know what to search, USC included, than any of our guesses. We do not need to redirect any conceivable or ever used string, if it ain't obvious, delete. - Nabla (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2021 (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.

A Secret Love (TV series)[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target and couldn't find information about a TV series named as such online. Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2021 (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.

ABC Radio (Australia)[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. Move request opened at Talk:ABC Radio and Regional Content. (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to delete this redirect so that I can move ABC Radio and Regional Content to this page. This is a fuller description of the entities that make up ABC Radio. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Upon reflection, this could probably have been listed as a technical move. I don't think there's much discussion to be had about it. Would someone please action it ASAP so I can finish cleaning up all of these ABC articles? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2021 (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.

Andrea di Giovanni[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 Andrea Di Giovanni. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 18:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created article Andrea Di Giovanni (with capital “D”), so I propose deleting the redirect page (with lowercase “d”). The new article is based on the musician’s common name, and has a hat note to help direct to Andrea da Firenze. I’m listing it here instead of requesting speedy deletion because I’m aware changing the primary topic for “Andrea (D/d)i Giovanni may be controversial. POLITANVM talk 04:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting would not be the optimal outcome. We should either retarget this to Andrea Di Giovanni as an {{R from miscapitalisation}} and add a hatnote there to Andrea da Firenze or keep it as it is per WP:SMALLDETAILS and add Andrea Di Giovanni to Andrea da Firenze's hatnotes. I'm currently neutral on which is better. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Compassionate727 - both of those make sense to me. For the latter option, that would be keeping Andrea Di Giovanni as is with its current hatnote linking to Giovanni da Firenze, and the only change would be adding Andrea Di Giovanni as a hatnote to Andrea di Firenze? If so, that sounds best to me. It doesn't cause any issues to have such similar titles with minimal capitalization differences? Most of the examples at WP:SMALLDETAILS seem to be more clearly distinct. POLITANVM talk 18:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Compassionate727, but I would favor the link changing to Antonio Di Giovanni, as that seems like the more likely intended target. But I'm fine with either decision. Rigadoun (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rigadoun: I assume you meant Andrea Di Giovanni, not Antonio? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Stupid typo; I should have noticed the red link. Rigadoun (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2021 (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/2021_June_12&oldid=1151047733"