Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2017.

Mike Pollock (voice actor)[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 deleted as R2. -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is redirecting to a draft space article, and may confuse users. I found this page linked on the Michael Pollock disambiguation page, and was confused about the AfC tags on the draft page, before eventually realizing that it was a draft. If/when the draft article is accepted into mainspace, it can be moved back to the Mike Pollock (voice actor) title. Natg 19 (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I had resubmitted the draft recently after several page moves that tried to move it out of draft directly without AFC reviewer approval, so if someone on AFC can approve that, then the draft can move over this redirect. Also recommend move Mike Pollock (disambiguation) over to Mike Pollock as it's now been shown there is no primary topic for Mike Pollock. Leave Michael Pollock (disambiguation) to absorb Mike Pollock and Mike Pollock (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC) updated 22:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like there might be some cleanup (merging) of the history needed here as the redirect looks to have some article history, but I'm not quite awake enough to be certain. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the draft need to move to Draft: Mike Pollock (voice actor)? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the draft over to the (voice actor) one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I meant moving Mike Pollock (voice actor) to Draft:Mike Pollock (voice actor). That would be a better un-speediable place for it to reside until a decision is made about what to do with it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was done, but it left these redirects. If it can be speedied or technically removed so that redlinks can be made, that would be fine. The Draft article holds the detailed history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is the cut and paste move that led to the current situation. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hypertext Command Line Interface (HCLI)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to this page. Now a redirect, it was a nearly incoherent stub sourced only to github. I can find no evidence, e.g., by Googling, that this is a notable term. Msnicki (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I wouldn't describe that stub as incoherent, just too short and written for (and presumably by) someone who understands the topic and the jargon. It's worth noting that there was content about this in the target article until it was removed by the nominator here shortly before the redirect was listed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original text of this page was copied to Command line interface, an article watched by many competent editors. I removed it from Command line interface in this edit based on the poor sourcing, including lack of any better sources I could find by searching. (Yes, I always do search first.) That left this page a dead redirect. Had it been left as an article, I'd have nominated it to AfD. If anyone can provide better sourcing I am open to changing my opinion. Msnicki (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence that there is such a thing, nor does it seem to be a useful search phrase.- MrX 21:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PUAHate[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 procedural close - converted to an article. This is without prejudice to PROD or AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at the target article about PUAHate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only connection is tangential (it was a forum that the perpetrator of the killings posted on) and consensus in the article is that it should not be included. The only mention in article space I can find is in Return of Kings (blog) which basically says that Return of Kings isn't the same thing as PUAHate, and so isn't a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded it into an article. That can either stand on its own or be merged into a larger article about manosphere sites. Compy book (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as not a valid request. The page is now an actual article citing numerous reliable sources (Mother Jones, BBC et al) clearly establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal:Current events/Canada/News Feed[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Portal:Current events/Canada doesn't exist. It was long since merged into the Portal:Current events. Mkdw talk 03:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:TAINTED[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects created a month ago for an essay created a month ago. If a reader is looking up the word "taint" as a shortcut, I'm not certain this is what they would be attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think that a WP shortcut is appropriate for an essay of this nature at this point in its life. I'd actually rather see it userfied, at least until it has some sort of consensus for it, but that's a discussion for a different venue (and independent of whether these WP shortcuts to it are appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is someone's personal agenda, the argument itself is muddled and unconvincing and no way do I think it needs a shortcut implying wide support for the views expressed. You know you're in trouble when someone starts worrying about "the image and the usability of Wikipedia" rather what reliable sources report about the prominence of differing viewpoints WP:RSUW, consensus and the various options for resolving content disputes. Msnicki (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete- I can't see anyone trying to find this article using "taint" as a title.. Porphyro (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Th Aqr[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eunot) and I'm a dutchman Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also th Aquilae, th Aurigae, th Andromedae, th Cassiopeiae, th Carinae, th Canis Majoris, th Capricorni, th Cancri, and th Dor. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And of course th Aquarii. Lithopsian (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Theta" seems to be used, not "Th". Peter James (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bot went beyond its remit and created a bunch of redirects that are both meaningless and potentially confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

AEgean Sea[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) feminist 09:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) I suppose this is harmless, but is back-formed from the "Ægean Sea". Since the target already has the WP:COMMONNAME, I think this can safely go. I don't think it's a case of {{r from other capitalisation}}, and is certainly not as catted an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Which ends up with it being WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, by reductio ad absurdem? Si Trew (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This is none of nonsense, harmful or used (3 hits last year is noise level). Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As nom points out, it does seem to fall through the cracks in our guidelines. But that's not a reason to keep it. This is merely junk no one happened to write down any rules to cover. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid of WP:DIACRITICS to a dated spelling. [1] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight, harmless + conforms with the rules (if practically useless). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this "practically useless" redirect didn't exist, would you favor creating it? If not, why keep it? Is there really any more to the argument than just WP:HARMLESS? Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. How else do you propose someone who doesn't know how to type "Æ" input "Ægean Sea"? Its creation would be supported by WP:DIACRITICS. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's search box, like the search function at Google, Bing and elsewhere, is case-insensitive. It doesn't matter how the term is typed, the correct case will display. Even "aEgeAn sEa" pops up "Aegean Sea" just fine. Try it. This has nothing to do with diacritics because there aren't any in "AEgean". This is only about case. That's not the same thing. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Msnicki (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not everybody uses the internal search engine, and other methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia are case sensitive. Redirects from alternate capitalisation are routinely kept. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some examples of these other methods? I'm being genuine. I don't know what you're referring to. Msnicki (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia include: Links (internal and external, only links in live revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia show up in "what links here") (always case sensitive), internal search engine ("go" is case sensitive, "search" usually isn't; suggestions are only shown to those with javascript enabled), bookmarks (always case sensitive), direct URL entry (usually case sensitive), searching via the URL bar (sometimes case sensitive, depending on browser and settings), search engines (depends on the search engine), third-party search applications (can be either), and possibly others. Depending on several factors including which method you use, what permissions your account has, the protection status of the target and whether the search engine is currently working, what happens if you enter a page title that doesn't exist varies - you might see search results, a search page with no results (or an error message), an invitation to search, an invitation to start a page or search, an invitation to start a page, an editing window or a note that you can't start a page (I don't think there are other options, at least on desktop, but I'm not completely certain and I don't know about mobile). It's also worth noting that search results, even when shown, cannot be guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'll clarify but it sounds like these are being offered as possibilities that may sometimes occur in some cases, not anything you've actually verified as a problem in the case at hand. Are you aware of even a single case on your list that's an actual problem here, not merely a possibility? Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to know how people arrive at a page, all we can know is the number of hits a page gets - anything more can only ever be speculation. Sometimes there are hints, but we can never be sure and we can't know what proportion use that method. I realise above I forgot Special:Randomredirect, but statistically speaking the chance of more than 1 hit per year being via that method is extremely remote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I invite you to provide one specific example of this redirect being useful to someone. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Siuenti: It will be useful to anyone who searches for "AEgean Sea" using any case sensitive search method. Patar knight believes this is sufficiently likely to happen that it is worth keeping. If you read my recommendation you will find I am neutral regarding it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hoping to learn what specific case sensitive search methods you're concerned about. I appreciate the problem might exist; I'm asking if it actually does or if you're merely offering speculation in lieu of facts. Msnicki (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the methods I listed above are used to search and browse Wikipedia, but it is not possible to know which method or methods are used to reach any particular page. You seem to be asking for me to tell you which case sensitive method(s) are actually used to view this redirect, rather than those that are theoretically capable of being used to view it, but it is simply not possible to answer that question. This is why RfD is generally concerned about plausibility in these cases - is it plausible that someone wanting the article about the Aegean Sea will search for "AEgean Sea", follow a link or bookmark to the AEgean Sea redirect and/or type http:// or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEgean_Sea into the url bar. If the answer is "yes", then this should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the case you're principally worried about, or at least, the only one you've identified where the user would not find Aegean Sea, is someone holding the stale URL to the deleted AEgean Sea? Instead, they'd get the "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted" notice and a link to this discussion, which you feel is inadequate? Is this usually a consideration in deletion discussions? Has that ever been a consideration in your experience? It hasn't in mine but my experience is almost entirely in AfDs; I'm new to RfDs so maybe I just need some help. Msnicki (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, anyone using any of the case sensitive search methods would not find Aegean Sea if this was deleted. Redirects are almost always about helping people find the content they are (the primary exception is when they are kept for attribution purposes, but that's not relevant to this redirect). When something at AfD is deleted, the content is deleted so there is no content to find. In this case the content still exists, and by not sending people directly to it we add between 1 (if search results are displayed and the target is in the top few hits) and many (the user has to search again) unnecessary steps between the user and the content. Sometimes extra steps are necessary, for example when the search term is ambiguous, but generally if a redirect is useful and neither harmful nor ambiguous, it should be kept (see WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE). Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should have mentioned WP:CHEAP in my rationale. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 18:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Msnicki: I don't know about AEgean Sea but I can do an example of when someone might search for Barack obama and benefit from the redirect. It goes like this: they are using the url to change the article title - this may be quicker than finding the search box and is a legitimate and quite powerful search method. They don't bother to capitalize the "o" in Obama because although they know this is a case-sensitive search method, they are confident that someone will have made a redirect from the miscapitalized version (this confidence is mostly justified for high-profile articles I believe). They got to where they were going slightly more quickly because of the redirect. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but Barack obama has a lot of links from user talk pages and other places all over WP. The links to AEgean Sea appear mostly on lists of pages needing review. That's not really the same thing. Msnicki (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changing to keep. I am unimpressed by arguments involving a stale URL in this case or the vague possibility of a hypothetical browser and search engine that only does case-sensitive web searches (I don't think that exists). But I am always easily and quickly persuaded by guidelines-based arguments and found the links to WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#KEEP to be helpful. Msnicki (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_May_6&oldid=1143742856"