Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2022.

Narrowing (computer science)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Narrowing (computer science)

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church[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. ✗plicit 14:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this name being used to designate thos organisation. I could not find a RS saying this organisation uses this name.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Non-reliable sources seem to consider this an alternative name. I hesitate to delete it for that reason, but Veverve's case is correct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt because of the hesitation to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any evidence the target denomination uses this terminology. Confusingly, there appears to be a denomination called Anglican Orthodox Church also based in the Southern U.S. I wonder if whomever created this redirect confused the two? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:59, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes hartfieldi[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 restored article and moved to Faxonius hartfieldi. Even though participants are split between deleting and restoring, they all agree on the fact that an article at the Faxonius title should exist. So, that's why I decided to go ahead and restored the stub that already existed at the previous title, without prejudice to nominating at AfD if deemed necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faxonius hartfieldi was moved from genus Orconectes to Faxonius in 2017. Also the redirect page contains Categories which is just weird. As the redirect will take users to the wrong genus, it should be deleted. Then, hopefully the red link will prompt somebody into creating a species page that can contain the required Categories 86.17.100.205 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either retarget to Faxonius or soft delete until a Faxonius sp. article is made so that we retarget to that article instead.. The genus was only relatively recently changed, so the old binomial name remains a plausible search term. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another attempt at retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore stub, move to Faxonius hartfieldi, and update accordingly. This redirect was the result of a blank and redirect (even though the history says merge, see my comment below). This solution is of course the most laborious, but is the proper fix given the information at hand. Deletion or retargeting to Faxonius seem like less desirable outcomes here. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes australis[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 restored articles. Without prejudice to nominating at AfD if needed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally acepted practice that non-fossil taxa should generally be redlinked to encourage article creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, we can use the {{ill}} templates to link to matching articles in French and Portuguese, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These have a history as articles, but were turned into redirects. They were stubs no inline citations, but the respective French and Portuguese articles are stubs with no inline citations (and no information beyond what was in the English articles). I don't see any point to linking foreign language articles when the English article could just be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore articles without prejudice to Afd if anyone desires. According to the edit history these were merged into the current target, but while their redirection coincided with a big addition of content to the target, no content other than maybe a reference was really copied over, so these were really blank and redirects. As with the nom, I have come to understand that general practice is to avoid redirecting species names to the respective genus articles in order to encourage article creation, so let's return these to stubs so they may be expanded, or deleted if there is later consensus that these stubs merit it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (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.

Prime Minister of Guatemala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Prime Minister of Guatemala

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Impact of Brexit[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 Brexit#Impact. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is from a move and therefore gets a ton of page views (especially because it is linked to from certain places), but this is a WP:SURPRISE to me. I was expecting an article about how Brexit has impacted the UK, not how Brexit was predicted to have impacted the UK. I would love if there were an appropriate place to retarget to, but otherwise this should be deleted under WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. TartarTorte 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, now that we have a section on Brexit's actual impacts. However, the hatnote should not be replaced because the link between "Impact of Brexit" and Brexit's predicted impact is too unintuitive to warrant a hatnote. A link to Predicted impact of Brexit can be integrated, however, if it is not already done. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2022 (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.

Todd Phelps[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 MCU disambiguator, delete full name. There's only been participation from one editor other than the nominator, but their suggestions appear to address the nominator's concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at redirect target, and not a notable character (only appeared in a small role in one TV episode, and not expected to appear again). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Todd Phelps as not yet given such a name in She-Hulk. Keep/hold off on any determination for the second. It's too early to know if this character will amount to anything or actually be another, more known character. So I'd say if needed to make a determination for this outcome, retarget to She-Hulk: Attorney at Law#Cast and characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Foster (2023 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 restore page. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (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.

NPGP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#NPGP

Two-way selection system[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this phrase in the target article. The redirect was created in 2011 a few minutes after the original article was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-way_selection_system&oldid=441118250) - the topic is one of many student concerns that eventually led to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The phrase is not notable - for example Google search "Two-way selection system" has only 1,250 results, with no mention of China in the top ten results. DarylKayes (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (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.

Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming"[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. It is clear at this point that there is a consensus to delete "upcoming" redirects where there is no project by that name that is upcoming. Relisting has only solidified this consensus, and there is no reasonable prospect that further discussion will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another 105 of these. Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming", Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Target subjects no longer "upcoming", etc. These redirects have no significant edit history other than redirections, and do/should not have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete, I don't mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is in regards to Sister (upcoming film) unless specified otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both Sister (upcoming film) and Sister (Upcoming film) should be deleted. The film eventually came out under the name Music (2021 film), and the name had been changed before production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine to delete but it was just released so I don't see the harm in keeping it up either. czar 03:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: Was this comment actually for Saints Row (upcoming video game)? It was listed as referring to Men (upcoming film), probably due to my posting several nominations and messing up the section header orders. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was, thanks czar 04:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussions and established consensus. For editors interested, there's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion regarding these kind of redirects here. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – support deleting these as basic housekeeping after the fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these 125-and-counting redirects per nom and above. It might mislead viewers into thinking that stuff is still upcoming, even when it isn't, and they can always be recreated if there's another movie/TV show/whatever else with that title announced. Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, redundent. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all without prejudice to smaller nominations. These redirects all need to be evaluated individually to see if they still have any use. The first ones I sport checked, Pinocchio (upcoming Disney film) and [[The Tragedy of Macbeth (upcomming film) got over 5000 hits and 74 hits in the last 30 days respectively. These are both extremely clearly still useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just spend over two hours doing what the nomiantor failed to do - a proper WP:BEFORE, and so here is my set of individual recommendations. Please do not collapse this as it would prejudice the discussion towards those who haven't done the research. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Nominator failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE"? Hahahaha, I almost fell on the floor laughing at that bogus claim. I checked the edit histories and the incoming links prior to the nomination; that was all the WP:BEFORE necessary, considering page views are irrelevant for the reasons already stated in all the other previously linked nominations. But sure, let's spread that lack of WP:GOODFAITH all around because ... why not? Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep
    • Keep
      • Nenjam Marappathillai (upcoming film)- 325 views in the last 30 days, the trend is actually slightly increasing.
      • Stowaway (upcoming film) - 41 views in the last 30 days, utility is clearly waning but it hasn't finished yet.
      • Vengeance (upcoming film) - 288 views in the last 30 days, still very much useful.
      • The Outfit (upcoming film) - 33 views in the last 30 days, not huge but the pattern is a constant with hits on about 3 days out of four.
      • The Forgiven (upcoming film) - 265 views in the last 30 days, only two days in this period has this redirect not helped 5 or more people.
      • Dreamland (upcoming film) - 53 views in the last 30 days with no evidence that things are slowing down.
      • Valley Girl (upcoming film) - 33 hits since 1 June, but the rate has been constant all year so utility isn't over yet.
      • Above Suspicion (upcoming film) - Hits started slowing down in April, but it still gets views on about half of days right up to now and its been that way since about June.
      • Thank You (upcoming film) - 61 hits in the last 30 days, things are slowing down but this is evidently still useful.
      • Senior Year (upcoming film) - things are definitely slowing down but with 268 hits in the last 30 days and only 4 days in that time with fewer than 4 hits (and every day with at least one) this one is still needed for now.
      • The Priest (upcoming film) - 178 hits this year, but the pattern of views has been constant since July 2021 so this is almost certainly still linked from somewhere (probably external).
      • Aadavaallu Meeku Joharlu (upcoming film) - 209 hits in the last 30 days with no change in the pattern since June this is clearly still needed.
      • Lost Illusions (upcoming film) - 109 hits in the last 30 days, and no change to the pattern since early April.
      • The Survivor (upcoming film) - 121 hits since 1 August, the long term trend here is one of a very gradual slowing down but this still gets multiple views nearly every day.
      • Love Story (upcoming film) - 271 hits in the last 30 days with a similar long term trend to the previous one and no blank days this year.
      • Around the World in 80 Days (upcoming TV series) - 22 hits in the last 30 days, but the pattern is one that inidicates a continued use that's been ongoing several months.
      • Persuasion (upcoming film) - 407 hits in the last 30 days indicates this is still very much in use.
      • Shirley (upcoming film) - 90 views in the last 30 days, almost all of them wirt in a big spike around the end of July-start of August, suggesting some relevant news or event happened then. I don't think this one will need to be around that much longer but it's too soon to say so needs to be kept for now.
      • Pearl (upcoming film) - 2028 hits in the last 30 days. 616 were on 13 August and only the following day since then has topped 75 but equally no day has had fewer than 17 views and the last 28 days have still accumulated 1287.
      • Trance (upcoming film) - 216 hits in the last 30 days. It's possible that this one's utilty ended last week but it is far, far too early to be sure about that. Reevaluate in a few months.
      • Memory (upcoming film) - 70 hits in the last 30 days with 10 of them yesterday and only 4 blank days. Clearly still needed.
      • The King's Daughter (upcoming film) - 103 hits in the last 30 days this one is still going strong.
      • The Dig (upcoming film) - 67 hits in the last 30 days, roughly half of days get multiple views so this one is still needed.
      • The Bubble (upcoming film) - 666 hits in the last 30 days, with the lowest day still halping 12 people find what they are looking for.
      • James (upcoming film) - 1336 hits in the last 30 days. The views rapidly delcined from 31 August but every day bar one since thne has seen at least one hit so its still too soon to delete this.
      • Pig (upcoming film) - 73 hits in the last 30 days, no case for deletion yet.
      • Men (upcoming film) - 12 hits in the last 30 days. It's probable that this wont be needed much longer, but its still needed now and that is what matters.
      • Brave New World (upcoming TV series) - 29 hits in the last 30 days and no evidence of a slowdown.
      • Mahaan (upcoming film) - a steady stream of singular views streching back to April. This looks like a very long tail, but it's still proving useful to some do deletion would harm without bringing benefit.
      • The Guilty (upcoming film) - 776 hits in the last 30 days. Views fell off a cliff after 7 September, which is far, far to recent for utility to have ended as there have been 2-3 hits every day since. Look again towards the end of the year.
      • Acapulco (upcoming TV series) - 28 views in the last 30 days, this is still clearly being used
      • Marry Me (upcoming film) - 37 views in the last 30 days, the majority of them in September means zero case for deletion.
      • Sister (upcoming film) - 71 views this year with a very flat trend. This is still useful.
      • The 4400 (upcoming TV series) - 26 views this year, all in the last 30 days. Clearly too soon to think of deletion.
      • Crimes of the Future (upcoming film) - 29 hits in the last 30 days. We're in the tail here, but we aren't at the end of it.
      • Memoria (upcoming film) - only 16 views in the last 30 days but the recent trend is slightly upwards so clearly people still find it useful.
      • Home Alone (upcoming film) - 19 hits in the last 30 days, which is slightly above the average that has been basically flat since early February.
      • Julia (upcoming TV series) - 16 hits in the last 30 days. This tail is coming to end but it hasn't ended yet.
      • The Woman in the Window (upcoming film) - 22 hits in the last 30 days, the trend is an increasing number of views. Keep for now and see what happens over the next three or so months
      • Malignant (upcoming film) - 19 views in the last 30 days with no obvious trend.
      • The Valet (upcoming film) - as above but 30 views in the last 30 days.
      • Cash Truck (upcoming film) - 84 hits this year, and the trend is only very slowly decreasing. This tail is long but it needs to finish before deletion is justifiable.
      • The Eyes of Tammy Faye (upcoming film) - 184 hits in the last 30 days. It looks like the tail started last week, which means its much too soon to consider deletion.
      • The Father of the Bride (upcoming film) - 260 hits since 1 July, this is tailing off for the second time but its very much in use at this point.
      • The Tragedy of Macbeth (upcoming film) - 74 hits in the last 30 days with a very organic looking pattern of views. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep
      • Seperation (upcoming film) - views have seriously declined but we're still helping multiple people every month.
      • Falling (upcoming film) - Another one that is very nearly but not quite at the end of its utility. Page views are few but steady.
      • The Craft (upcoming film) - views have significantly tailed off, but with 10 hits in the last 30 days and occasional spikes since March it's too soon to be certain people aren't still using this to find the target.
      • Attack (upcoming film) - only 35 hits since 1 April, this is clearly very near the end of its utility but isn't there yet.
      • Joe Exotic (upcoming TV series) - 8 hits in the last 25 days, but those are the only ones for months. Need to wait a bit longer to see what's happening here.
      • Dog (upcoming film) - this is still getting a smattering of hits. It wouldn't suprise me if some of these are people seeing the link in suggestions and getting curious, but there is no way to prove that and even if it is I can't think of why it would be a bad thing as they're learning something they didn't know when the follow the link.
      • Umma (upcoming film) - 112 hits in the last 30 days. Daily viewing ended on 1 September, with only 5 views since but it's far to soon to know if that is a blip or the beginning of the end. Either way it's not the end of the end and that's the only appropirate time to delete.
      • Bel-Air (upcoming TV series) - 22 views since March, but most of them in September and yesterday wasn't the peak. Probably a blip but better keep for now to make sure.
    • Delete
    • Weak delete
      • The Twin (upcoming film) - It looks like the utility of this one probably ended in early August, bar a couple of recent views. Weak because it's just a little bit too soon to be completely certain.
      • Julia (upcoming American film) - this was getting regular hits until 10 August but only 1 since. Ideally this wouldn't have been nominated until that end of utility was clearer but that's a much harder edge than typical so on balance I'm here.
      • American Dreamer (upcoming film) - 25 hits since May, 2 of them yesterday and 2 in August. Almost certainly this has ended its period of usefulness but I'm not ready to be firm.
      • Café con aroma de mujer (upcoming TV series) - this is another one that is at the very tail end of its utility but really shouldn't have been nominated for another month or so to be sure.
      • Reminiscence (upcoming film) - very near the end of its utility with 15 views in the last 30 days, probably at it, but not quite after it.
      • Haathi Mere Saathi (upcoming film) - 7 views this year, 3 of them yesterday but the ones before that were in March.
      • My Son (upcoming film) - it's almost but not quite certain this redirect's utility ended in late July-early August. Another one where the nomination came 1-2 months too early for ideal but as we're here I can't argue deletion now is unquestionably wrong.
      • Texas Chainsaw Massacre (upcoming film) - 6 hits hits in September, but they're the only ones since April. Something could be happening but its unlikely given they are three pairs of days with hits.
      • Moonshot (upcoming film) - 7 hits in the last 30 days. The longer term trend suggests that this has been nomianted about a month too early, but this is in the same basked as My Son.
      • The Mighty Ducks (upcoming TV series) - almost exactly per Texas Chainsaw Massacre but with 8 recent hits and none before that since May. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reassess next week.
      • Dracula (upcoming miniseries). 13 views yesterday, but that's the only day since at least 1 January 2020 with more than 2 hits. It could be related to preparation for this RfD or similar RfDs but it could also be independent. Compare its views over the course of this RfD to other redirects nominated in this bunch, delete if the pattern of views is roughly similar but keep if there are noticeably more. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page views alone should not be the deciding factor in deletion discussions. These redirects are inherently inaccurate and misleading to readers, and it has been the long-standing consensus to delete these redirects regardless of page views and closeness to release date. FYI, Pinocchio came out four days ago, so of course you're going to see views in the past 30 days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. The purpose of redirects is to help people find the content they are looking for, and large numbers of page views are the most objective evidence that they are doing that it is possible. We routinely keep {{R from move}} redirects and being moved only four days ago is an extremely strong reason to keep. Consensus can, and evidently should change if it is has previously been used to justify actively harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: per Thrydullf, without prejudice to smaller renoms. I think that there is probably a difference between something like Black and Blue (upcoming film) which hasn't been upcoming for about 3 years, whereas Pinocchio (upcoming film) is no longer upcoming as of a few days ago. TartarTorte 13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assessment by Thryduulf for the keeps and deletes and reassess. I'd probably go one step further and wonder if the nominator be restricted from making these bulk nominations — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! Hasn't been a problem until the above WP:TRAINWRECK-causing comment. Plus I whole heartedly disagree about keeping these due to page views: no incoming links = me more page views, and consensus has agreed time and time again that once these are no longer "upcoming", the "upcoming" redirects get deleted. If anything, the fact that I have to do so many bulk nominations proves the fact that there's several problematic redirects with this issue that need to get removed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no incoming links = [no] more page views is a nice theory but it completely ignores how the world actually works. We can control incoming links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, we have no control over links elsewhere and incoming links from external sites are almost certainly driving the long-tail of views on many of these redirects which almost certainly haven't had internal links other than these redirects pointing to them for months (and the redirects with essential zero views demonstrate that the redirects themselves don't cause the views). We also have no control over things like people's memories and bookmarks. If you don't want a bulk nomination to end as a trainwreck then do a proper WP:BEFORE and verify that there are no factors, such as wildly differing page views, that mean someone would plausibly have different opinions about different redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My responses: Links to old revisions on third party sites are not our problem, people bookmarking old revisions should know better, etc. and a bunch of stuff that has already been said before to a point where everyone is beating a dead horse. All of these claims about users and computers are a bunch of theoretical red herrings that result from lack of users maintaining their own computer's settings whereas this nomination is to fix Wikipedia at the source. But, no matter, I'm going to take a nice, long break, and let you all sort this out and try your best to dispute previous consensuses and precedence until your fingers get numb from typing to prove finding that golden WP:CCC in a haystack can be accomplished. I'm done. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, this is getting out of hand. If you won't support the CSD proposal, at least consider acknowledging the consensus from innumerable discussions in the past that page views are irrelevant. Besides, even with your massive comment above consensus is still leaning on deleting, so it's clear your points are not persuasive to most editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: Consensus is not binding, and especially not ones that run directly contrary to the basic principles of redirects - namely that they exist to help people find the content they are looking for. I get that you are unhappy that people don't agree with you about your proposal at WT:CSD (which almost everyone agrees fails 2-3 of the four requirements) but that's not relevant here.
    @Steel1943: Links on other sites are not to "old revisions" they are made to the title of the article that is current at the time the link is made and they are not theoretical concerns - the page view stats prove that. And is not webmasters (the people who can fix links) that are the main issue (although they can't fix them if they can't find the new article) it's the readers of those sites who cannot. It is our responsibility to avoid breaking links unnecessarily, and deleting redirects that are not in use is not fixing Wikipedia at source it is breaking Wikipedia for downstream users for no benefit to ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Current revision", "old revision", whatever ... it's still a link to a revision rather than the live article. Still disagree with the "...avoid breaking links..." comment for reasons I already stated, but whatever. Any who, my ability to discuss semantics has been totally exhausted. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I just noticed the repeat accusation that I failed to do a "proper WP:BEFORE" in the previous comment, I'll address it again with the same point I made in my previous statement: I checked the edit histories and the incoming links prior to the nomination; that was all the WP:BEFORE necessary, considering page views are irrelevant for the reasons already stated in all the other previously linked nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to establish some speedy deletion standard for stuff like this already, many if not all of these spaces might be needed again eventually.★Trekker (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that, then read the WP:NEWCSD requirements and craft a proposal at WT:CSD that meets all four of them. Nothing anybody has suggested so far has done anything other than clearly failed objective and/or uncontestable and commenters are strongly divided about whether it is frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Highly unlikely that these will be needed or used. If found that some are needed, creating one on a need basis is easy. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown above that many of these are both used and needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the ones that have been shown to have a significant amount of views. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: They all are general housekeeping as they are no longer "upcoming". The "upcoming" is misleading now. — YoungForever(talk) 18:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, for reasons repeatedly explained, they aren't actually misleading and inconveniencing literally thousands of readers is not "housekeeping". Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree, if they have premiered/released, they are not "upcoming" anymore. — YoungForever(talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed they aren't upcoming anymore, but that only explains why they will at some point cease to be useful redirects (hence why many of these can be safely deleted) but that point doesn't arrive the moment the page is moved. In most cases they remain good and necessary redirects for somewhere between a couple of weeks and a few months, but the above list shows that the whole range is between about a week and a couple of years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and I also support the CSD proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thryduulf's assessment above. I don't see a compelling reason to delete potentially (or actually) useful redirects just because they are incorrect, which is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf assessment per above; if a reader doesn't read enough of the first sentence to ascertain that the film is not upcoming, they almost certainly haven't read the article anyway. I do agree with deleting the ones that do not involve old links, as they are faintly misleading. J947 † edits 23:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not sympathetic to the view that deletion breaks external links (and I also support the CSD proposal). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That deletion breaks any external links that are extant is unarguable fact, disagreement is over whether that is something we should care about. Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do." Same here, but editors have differing opinions about how to go about this. For example, whereas you believe the deletion of these redirects causes harm, I believe the existence of these redirects causes harm. All of this has been explained above by both sides, but I think I've said enough to hopefully avoid this discussion going into a tangent of their opinions of Wikipedia as a whole since this discussion will end up being about the closer's assessment of the arguments instead of how passionate any editors are regarding their sides of the argument. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that none of the delete !voters have responded to Thryduulf's argument earlier than These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. (which would be equally valid if I replaced the word "misleading" with "harmful"), and in fact many of them amount to little more than pure votes. In the absense of any refutation to that argument, it seems clear that Thryduulf's assessment' is preferable to deletion.
    Finally, a few general responses to the discussion above: this is not a WP:TRAINWRECK, as the discussion is splitting cleanly between two outcomes despite the large number of redirects nominated. Nor is it correct to accuse Steel1943 of failing to do a proper WP:BEFORE; the point of BEFORE by my understanding is that people should make an effort to discover information that could convince them the page should no longer be deleted before starting a deletion discussion; since Steel1943 evidently thinks page views are irrelevant (regardless of whether you agree with them) they do not constitute that kind of information and there was no obligation to look at them. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as incorrect and invalid. The invalid double redirects can be fixed on Wikipedia. There aren't meaningful amounts of external links to the invalid redirects, and even if there were, it wouldn't be a policy reason to keep these. Jontesta (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that being incorrect is explicitly not a reason on it's own to delete a redirect (see {{R from incorrect name}}) and the page view data I posted above strongly implies that some of these do have "meaningful amounts" of external links. If by "invalid" you mean some of these are double redirects, then that's a trivial fix that will happen automatically if kept, if you mean something different you are going to need to explain further. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, misleading. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it misleading to be taken to the content you are looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How could you possibly know it's what they're looking for? —Xezbeth (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was the location of the article the last time they read it and/or when the person who wrote the page they're reading added a link to it, and there being no other films etc of that name that are or have recently been upcoming. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2022 (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.

Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)[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. BD2412 T 02:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the subject of the redirect's target was cancelled, meaning the disambiguator or the redirect is erroneous to a point where it is not helpful. Also, a related redirect, Unreal Tournament (cancelled video game), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer useful. --Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 242 hits in the last 30 days shows that this is very much still useful, longer term stats show almost no slowing down over the entire year so deletion would be actively harmful to many readers. The target explains that the video game is no longer upcoming so there is nothing misleading here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page views were most likely caused by incoming links from the "article" namespace, which have now all been bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If your crystal ball is working perfectly then in a month or so after this RfD is kept the evidence will show it is no longer needed and can be deleted having harmed nobody in the meanwhile. If, as is actually more likely, views are coming from a variety of sources then the stats will show that and we will learn that we were correct not to be hasty and avoided unnecessarily harming the project by needlessly inconveniencing readers. Either way, there is absolutely no need engage in speculation or guesswork. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My crystal ball never worked, so I threw it away. Instead, I go by what has happened in every other discussion like this, also known as "precedence". Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which as you should know has absolutely no influence over what will happen in the future. Just because we got it wrong in the past doesn't mean we will continue to get it wrong in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There comes a point in like everything, Wikipedia included, where there's enough evidence to validate something happening again. With the years of previous nominations, I think the point has been made strong enough where these repeat conversations are akin to ... beating a dead horse. But alas, this place has to be a place of controversy, so let's aim for WP:CCC since it's fun, apparently. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is not "fun", it is however important to attempt to prevent harming the encyclopaedia where it is possible to do so. When consensus regarding these redirects applies the same as consensus regarding every other type of redirect everyone will benefit and nobody will be harmed. Until that time I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "...I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers." Same here, except we have different ideas of what "harm[s] readers": Whereas you believe the removal of these redirects harms readers, I believe keeping these redirects harms readers. But either way, with all due respect, I'm trying to avoid having this discussion go into WP:BLUDGEONING territory, so I'm most likely going to end this conversation here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943's crystal ball. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no longer valid or correct. Jontesta (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even more misleading than the typical redirects since this game's development ended and was never finished. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2022 (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.

Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

Virginie-Occidentale[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. ✗plicit 00:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special affinity between the French language and West Virginia. TartarTorte 00:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. West Virginia is not mentioned at all in French language in the United States, and seeing how comprehensive that article is I'm sure it would be if there was any significant connection. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete per the above. BD2412 T 02:58, 23 September 2022 (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/2022_September_19&oldid=1112757747"