Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2018.

Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality[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. I'm sympathetic to those favoring delete, and I suppose it might be worth taking a look at all such pages depending on how the CfD turns out, but this is not a discussion of whether the category should exist, be used as it currently is, or what it means for the redirect (if anything, the latter is likely only to persuade in one direction, toward keep). When examining the redirect, folks find it useful, so keep.

FWIW, back in February I opened a github issue for twinkle to add the section when nominating redirects. Silence thus far... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a notable stand-alone topic, which is why it's a redirect. But lots of people have views on homosexuality, and we don't create redirects like this. Why single out Card? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget slightly to Orson Scott Card#Views about homosexuality. It's apparently notable enough for inclusiuon in his article, so there's some use for a redirect. And that's the whole point of a redirect - to be useful. Smartyllama (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Smartyllama. Given that there is a section with this title in the article his views on homosexuality are apparently more notable (and/or more relevant to his notability) than most people's. If you think the section is undue (I have no opinion about that) then discuss it on the article talk page. Iff the section is deleted then I'd be open to reconsidering the utility of the redirect, but as it stands it's clearly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., This was already a section redirect, but I've edited to made that clear in the nomination. (Alas, this still doesn't happen automatically.) --BDD (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as the section redirect now showing here): there is a section so apparently something notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Lithopsian (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the fact that a section exists is an insufficient reason to oppose, we don't create redirects for every section of every article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed we don't, but just because we wouldn't necessarily create a redirect is not a reason to delete one that has been created - see WP:R#KEEP point 5 - if someone went to the trouble of creating a page with this title we can safely assume that they would find the existence of such a title useful, and it's quite likely that they wont be alone in that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect exists so as to comply with the criterion for inclusion in Category:Views on homosexuality, currently also nominated for Deletion, with a majority in favour at this point. There are a significant number of notable individuals whose views on homosexuality are at least as notable as Card's, and are or were notably activist in that regard e.g. Fred Phelps, John Shelby Spong, Harvey Milk, Anita Bryant and a plethora of others, but for them to be able to be categorized under Category:Views on homosexuality, their views on homosexuality would either have to be excised from their bio article and pasted into a new article dealing uniquely with their notable views on homosexuality, thereby potentially stigmatising them in an ad hominem categorisation, or to be duplicated, thereby contributing to data redundancy. If on the other hand, Section Redirects are to occur, then the articles for the notables I just mentioned would in certain instances have to be re-organised so as to include a Section dealing with their views on homosexuality, and for the redirects to such a section to be relinquished if a future edit renames, removes or materially alters the section. Given the prevailing view that Category:Views on homosexuality should not be linking to bios in the first place, I think the most sensible solution is to delete the Category, delete this one redirect, and to repatriate the tiny number of articles on notables that have "...views on homosexuality" appended to their article title, such as Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, with their main bios, e.g. Rick Santorum. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the fact there's a whole section at Orson_Scott_Card#Views_about_homosexuality - If one searches "Orson Scott Card homosexuality" they get taken to these results where they can then click on the second result, Not sure if entirely plausible but still it's more or less relevent so keep. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions." Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact there's a whole section on this very thing makes your entire reply moot, Also we currently have Racial views of Donald Trump and the alike so pages like this do exist (Only difference being this may not be notable for a standalone article but that's another discussion for another day, –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That Trump material is an entire article, not a redirect to a section as in the Card instance, moreover, there is no Category:Views on race. They'd still get taken to Orson Card's bio with your search string, even without the redirect. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes but not to the correct part which is why this redirect would serve a purpose and be of help –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Returning to the Nominator’s opening premise, “why single out Card”? And why not a redirect to every section of every article on every notable? Fred Phelps (“God hates fags”) wasn’t just notable, he was notorious for his views on homosexuality, but despite there being a Fred_Phelps#Anti-gay section, there’s no redirect to it via a Fred Phelps’ views on homosexuality and he’s not listed at Category:Views on homosexuality, nor indeed are nearly all the notable biographies with notable views on homosexuality (bar the three listed, one of whom is Card). Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have no interest in being bludgeoned to death with your replies, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to justify keeping or deleting, I have nothing else to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. –Davey2010Talk 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: ‘"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.’ And Wikipedia:Five pillars: ‘Wikipedia has no firm rules’. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Chrisdevelop: Whether the category exists or not, and if it exists which articles are or are not in it is entirely irrelevant to whether the redirect is useful or not. Whether articles have or don't have similar redirects is also irrelevant to whether this redirect should exist. See WP:R#KEEP points 3 and 5. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • At WP:R#KEEP point 5 of reasons not to delete, if "someone finds them useful" is de facto a reason never to delete a single redirect, because at least the editor who created the redirect "found it useful". Given that, apart from the obvious, such as the target itself being deleted, when would one ever delete a redirect? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If we went by that logic there wouldn't be one redirect on here ..... The whole point of redirects is to essentially help our readers find notable topics and certain things that person is notable for, and as Orson is notable for his views it's only correct a redirect of this nature exists, You disagree with the redirect, 3-4 editors don't ..... Now might be a good time to stop replying and BLUDGEONING everyone to death. –Davey2010Talk 02:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "That logic"? You sent me to WP:R#KEEP, where I discovered that so long as just one person finds a redirect useful, the redirect should remain, so I already conceded your case, since according to WP:R#KEEP Point 5, apart from deletion of the target, no redirect should ever be redacted. I don't consider my pointing this out and asking about it, to be "bludgeoning" anyone. So who's bludgeoning whom here? According to Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" WP:CIVIL. I don't regard your shouting in capital letters as remotely respectful. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to be an environment of cordial discourse to reach consensus, but being shouted at and told to bugger off, isn't cordial, it's bullying. You're keeping this going by continually replying to me, despite saying you “have nothing else to add to this discussion”. If it's the last word you need to have, to "win", I'll happily let you have it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2018 (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.

Hyperforce[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. No opposition to a dab, but if it's as-yet unused on the 'pedia, that's a hard case to make. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of this term and it does not occur in the target article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the term hyperforce is certainly used in physics, but it isn't clear that it always means the same thing. I'm used to it in the context of being an elementary force in the standard model. It doesn't appear to be described in Wikipedia, and all I could find with that word are Power Rangers spinoffs. Dark energy wouldn't be the first thing that came to mind for hyperforce but it isn't entirely unrelated. Lithopsian (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lithopsian: Would you say there is scope for a disambiguation page? Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly there's scope. It isn't particularly useful or used as a redirect, so no harm in making it slightly more useful as a disambiguation page. I was going to say that there isn't really a physics page about hyperforce but I found fifth force, which is one of the things that has been called a hyperforce. Another would be the force related to the hypercharge although neither of those articles currently includes the word "hyperforce". Lithopsian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not use the term anywhere in a physics context (pop culture predominantly). Google pulls up a number of pop culture items as well as some physical fitness type things. Even Google Books has a set of ambiguous meanings though it seems to cover the physics dimension fairly well. Delete the redirect IMO per WP:REDLINK and the fact the phrase does not appear in the target article. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By itself, the term seems too generic and vague. I'd much rather that we just be rid of it than keep it and potentially create confusion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (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.

Visaal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#Visaal

Forever Until Tomorrow[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 Hard to Breathe, delete rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these titles are mentioned at the target article and do not appear on any editions of the album. There's no other plausible target for them. Ss112 13:44, 30 April 2018 (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.

Bighouse (brand)[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. ~ mazca talk 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a "brand", nor has an association with a "brand". In addition, it doesn't seem appropriate to retarget this redirect to The Big House for the same reason. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list at The Big House doesn't seem particularly brand-heavy or useful to someone interested in Bighouse brands. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the The Big House disambiguation page which lists multiple brands and also the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huh? Which entries at The Big House are brands that could plausibly be known as "Bighouse"? -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two entries in the "Other uses" section. They are not technically brands but it's very plausible someone may think they are (indeed I did when I first looked). Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, there are no brands at the disambiguation page, especially none styled as "Bighouse", so retargeting there is a bit too misleading for my taste. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • However there are at least two entries that someone using this search term may be looking for, meaning there is a clear benefit to targeting the redirect there. Such targeting would not be misleading anybody - it's the precise spirit of {{R from misnomer}}. If someone is viewing that dab page having arrived there by any other route they will not be mislead either as they will be entirely unaware of this redirect. In short there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Likewise, not sold. A winery without it's own article and a video game contest, both using a space. Sure it's a misnomer, but I think anyone looking for a Bighouse brand will be disappointed and WP:SURPRISEd to find no "brands" per se, just "things with that name." Even that latter option is thin. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A redirect sending readers to a dab page with a long list of entries, for two of which there is some remote relevance of the redirect but only as an incorrect disambiguation of a different spelling? That's only confusing. – Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2018 (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.

Masticatory forc (Nankali's systematization)[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A misspelling, and an unlikely disambiguator Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is an article about Nankali's systemization, but having a typo like this is not helpful. Also created by Nankali as a typo redirect and potential COI AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 30 April 2018 (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.

Rum Pum Pum Pum[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this lyric really mostly associated with this song? I'd say most people would more commonly associate it with Little Drummer Boy, as it's one of the more famous Christmas song lyrics. The similar lyric pa rum pum pum pum already redirects there (full disclosure, I created that redirect.) Stats show peaks in December of each year since 2015, which suggests at least some people are looking for the Christmas song. I suggest retargeting. Smartyllama (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is the name of the single according to the track listing and was originally an article that got converted to a redirect. If this is retained, a redirects here and hatnote should be added to Little Drummer Boy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of it being an actual released single from the album, it should attract the redirect. i've added the hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 1 May 2018 (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.

Fatty and Smellma[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even hazard a guess as to why this was created. I assumed it was a very obscure reference to a certain episode, but Google turns up absolutely nothing, so it beats me... Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Withdrawn I've just realized that, despite Googling it multiple times, I somehow made the same typo every time. When I added that "L" that I missed, it brought up loads of results. Well, I'm an idiot. I think I'll have to take a break from RFD after that...Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator - article cites this as a name Homer calls them, and it's relatively harmless. Google confirms he used it several times and it wasn't just my imagination. Smartyllama (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I completely missed that. Though I still maintain that when I Googled this phrase, it turned up nothing (well, more specifically, it turned up 5 results, none of which were of any interest). Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • I think you messed up the strikethrough tags. You wound up striking everything, including your withdrawal and my comment. Was this intentional? Smartyllama (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (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.

Rana Plaza Disaster - Savar, Bangladesh[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is too obscure and thus useless. Rana Plaza disaster is sufficient. Brycehughes (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bob the IP. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf & Bob - Plausible search term. –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible due to the formatting. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? What is implausible about the formatting? Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (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/2018_April_30&oldid=1138582253"