Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2018.

House trap[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 14#House trap

ProCaster[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target page; no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Vestel as belonging to that brand. On the flip side, maybe there should be a dab page for Procaster for Rode Microphones and Livestream AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 08:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Ilta-Sanomat source says that ProCaster is Verkkokauppa.com's own brand [1] (in Finnish). --Pudeo (talk) 20:03, 7 July 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.

Telugu Nadu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 14#Telugu Nadu

Wikipedia:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Wikipedia:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN

Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 14#Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute

Acoptic polygon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 15#Acoptic polygon

Sakr (disambiguation)[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 Saqr (disambiguation). A couple of comments not explicitly !voting retarget mention or devolve in some sense to this outcome, and given that the current state has existed without great hue or cry, it seems convincing enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sakr (disambiguation) currently redirects to Sakr, a set index article. As far as I can tell, there is no need for a disambiguation page; the only non-person article that I found was ST Sakr which I've placed in a hatnote on Sakr. Leschnei (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty routine, there are about 200,000 other pages just like it: Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's point is that the target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:INTDABLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (replaced by retarget below). Sakr is not a disambiguation page: an INTDABLINK is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (disambiguation) redirects to set index pages are exactly as useful for searches as those redirects pointing to traditional disambiguation pages. The distinction between the two types of page listing multiple articles that are associated with the same or similar search terms is entirely arbitrary and which we have on a given topic is not predictable. Thus the (disambiguation) redirects allow a user to find the content they are looking for (an index to articles related to their search term) whichever form it takes and at whichever title it is at. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes, I am, of course, familiar with your argument, although you know I disagree with it. (disambiguation) redirects should point to disambiguation pages and nothing else. Otherwise logically you should be creating (disambiguation) redirects where they don't already exist to titles at the base name among the 68,980 articles in Category:Surnames (not to mention 13,978 at Category:Given names). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation would not be appropriate as not all of them function as disambiguation pages, and separate disambiguation pages exist in some cases. Unless there are multiple people known mononymously by a given first name (or other uses of that name as e.g. a brand name) then there is little likelihood people will be searching for a disambiguation page for people by first name (possibly excluding Icelandic names) - and some of those exist (e.g. Dave is a dab page). However every page that does function as a disambiguation page should have a (disambiguation) redirect pointing to it - if you know how to determine those programatically then please let me know and I will arrange for the mass creation of those redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC: INTDAB links to non-dab pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea User:Tavix. Strike my delete above: I support this retarget. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to allow the 20 June page to be closed. An uninvolved closer may asses consensus at any time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 6 July 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.

McArthur Lake (Goldsboro)[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. This is a bit of a mess of a discussion, but I think we can take care of it.
~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect which created during or soon after AFD about McArthur Lake (then a list-article, now a dab page), which in my perception was created solely to defend inclusion of a non-notable item in the list/dab. The target article has no content related to the topic "McArthur Lake (Goldsboro)" (which is IMO not a notable topic), after I deleted an out-of-context odd statement about the lake, which had been inserted apparently to "protect" the inclusion of the item in the list-article/dab page. I am also nominating two other "McArthur Lake" redirects which point to articles having no related content (where I removed nothing). NOTE: The editor creating marginal content about "Lakes with 'McArthur' in their name" may well change material in the redirect targets during this RFD in order to defend against this. Like they changed content of articles and made changing arguments during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake (2nd nomination) (which ended "Keep" but the upshot was the list-article was eliminated and replaced by a disambiguation page, as requested in the nomination) [and during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacArthurs Lake. Seems like too much investment/commitment to a cause, impairing judgment IMO. ]. So anyhow, addition of trivia at the targets should just be reverted, and this RFD should pass judgment that manufacture of material about "lakes named 'McArthur'" is not wanted. And a redirect to nothing is confusing/bad/nonsensical and is to be avoided. I hope we won't go through this too many more times. Doncram (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as predicted, in this edit they added confusing trivia into the Pugwash River article about a single 1881(!) usage of "mcarthur lake" term. This is confusing trivia, seeming to imply to the reader that a lake by that name exists, when in fact there is no evidence that the temporary sawmill dam of 1881 still exists. For purpose of that article, it is best not to mention any such naming of the temporary dam backup. The trivia is being added to "win" this RFD, in order to try to keep the corresponding item as a bluelink in the dab page. I removed the added content. I won't edit war, but neither should that editor. --Doncram (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Retarget all to List of lakes named McArthur where all 3 are mentioned. (see below for vote) These redirects were made to comply with an AfD recommendation that the names be redirected to entries in geographical locations that include the subjects. The question is whether a reader may be looking for information on one of these lakes, and whether the redirect would help them find it.
  • In the case of the lake on the Pugwash_River#River, the answer is obviously "yes". The target article gives information on this sawdust-choked former lake. Not many people would be looking for it, but we can afford the disk space taken up by the redirect in case they are. There is no good reason to delete it.
  • The Goldsboro redirect is less useful now that the nominator has wiped out the (minimal) information on the lake. As far as I can tell, this lake and Wills Pond are the only significant bodies of water in the city. I would favour restoring the snippet on the lake, adding more to the very skimpy section on Geography, e.g. on Wills Pond and the Neuse River, and keeping the redirect.
  • As for the lake in Saskatchewan, Garcier, Romain (Autumn 2009), "The nuclear 'renaissance' and the geography of the uranium fuel cycle", Geography, 94 (3), Geographical Association: 202, retrieved 2018-06-05 – via JSTOR says McArthur Lake and Rabbit Lake in Saskatchewan contain high grade uranium ore, and are the sources of almost a quarter of all natural uranium mined worldwide. The redirect seems relevant.
Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for the Saskatchewan one, you agree there is NO MENTION in the target article. And to me it seems the source you give here might just have a typo, accidentally using "McArthur Lake" to refer to what is called "McArthur River/Key Lake" in the Wikipedia article. I assume it is the only source you have mentioning it. This is not a geographical location in Canada's equivalent to the GNIS system or anything. So it doesn't exist, I think. It it not mentioned in List of lakes in Saskatchewan and it would not be defensible to add there, either...if it gets added by you it will get a "disputed" tag and/or be deleted. Do you want to keep arguing for it, as a bargaining chip in a negotiation / edit war where you are trying to inflate mentions of "lakes with 'McArthur' in their name" for some reason? Why?
And, for the Pugwash River one, you want to hang your hat on one 1884 usage, to suggest readers might be looking for it. There is now no common usage of the term. It doesn't exist, as far as you or I know. Maybe that single 1884 usage was a typo/incorrect, and there was no other usage of the term back then. It is not encyclopedic to mention it at all, changing what was perfectly good treatment of the Pugwash River topic of the article, unnecessarily. It likewise is not included and does not belong on a list of lakes in Nova Scotia.
About Goldsboro, I'm sorry, I don't tend to believe your goal is to improve the Goldsboro article. --Doncram (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Aymatth2 added, and I removed, ridiculous coverage of various lakes not in Goldsboro, in order to try to win this RFD. There is no McArthur Lake in goldsboro. If i remember to keep coming back to check, there will never be coverage of such a lake in the Goldsboro article. It would be stupid to keep a redirect to Goldsboro. --Doncram (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "mcarthur lake" uranium mine gets a reasonable number of hits, e.g. mining.com "... the world's second largest high-grade uranium deposit (Cameco's McArthur Lake being the largest) ...". A reader interested in the world's largest uranium deposit could well search Wikipedia and find "McArthur Lake". An entry in that page for the redirect McArthur Lake (Saskatchewan) --> McArthur River uranium mine would be useful to them. Ditto with the other two. In my view, it was incorrect to remove links to the redirects from McArthur Lake and to remove mentions of McArthur Lake from the target local geography articles before this discussion has been resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may expand McArthur Lake (Saskatchewan) to cover the lake at 55°15′00″N 102°24′01″W / 55.25008°N 102.4004°W / 55.25008; -102.4004, with a hatnote pointing to the uranium mine article. The other two could either stay pointing to the target local geography articles, where they are now again mentioned after restoring content deleted by the nominator, or retargeted to List of lakes named McArthur, which gives coordinates and links to the redirect targets. Deletion makes no sense, but the appropriate targets may be discussed on the talk pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RFD to discuss the redirects. Shifting discussion of the redirects to their Talk pages is no answer. --Doncram (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In three edits (interrupted by Aymatth2 reversion in the middle), I removed the 3 lakes from the List of lakes named McArthur article. I removed the absolutely false assertion that there is a lake in Goldsboro; there is no such lake in Goldsboro. I removed the Pugwash River item, because it has no coordinates and apparently appears on no map and DOES NOT EXIST; it seems likely there was temporarily a dam lake in 1884; it is non-encyclopedic to mention it when nothing effectively is known about it. I removed the uranium mine area one as also there are no coordinates, and it is false that the uranium area is referred to as McArthur Lake, as far as I can tell. I think I can't read the 3 sources, perhaps temporary Google books selective page blocking, or perhaps there is in fact no mention in those sources. I presume that Aymatth2 has already restored all three items, as part of warring to win this RFD. wp:BATTLEGROUND. Not part of developing Wikipedia to serve readers. --Doncram (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McArthur Lake in Goldsboro is at 35°20′29″N 78°00′53″W / 35.3413°N 78.0147°W / 35.3413; -78.0147 and is mentioned by the sources cited in the article on Goldsboro, North Carolina and List of lakes named McArthur. I do not see that it deserves an article on its own, but it is certainly worth mention in those articles. The lake on the Pugwash no longer exists, and is also not worth an article, but may be interesting historically. The uranium mine is often called (apparently incorrectly) "McArthur Lake". Sources using the term (and sometimes also "McArthur River"), include [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]], [8], [9] and many others. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth2, you are obviously fudging because you plainly know there is no such lake in Goldsboro. You yourself created a bogus paragraph essentially about lakes "near" Goldsboro to insert mention of one more than 3 miles away, amidst superflous others. Your supposed source does not support that there is a McArthur Lake in Goldsboro. In city and town articles, we do not routinely, or not at all, cover "nearby" lakes. Great that you admit the Pugwash lake does not exist, but no it is not "interesting" to discuss something about which we don't have any real information to share. Right, we should not propagate incorrect names, and the McArthur River uranium mine article quite properly does not discuss it, so to it is a stretch to assert we should discuss an incorrect name elsewhere though without adequate sourcing to discuss the incorrectness. Ugh. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One purpose of a redirect is to help readers find information when they may not know the precise article name.

Aymatth2 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. The Topozone map source doesn't load. The hcpplanning map has no label for any McArthur Lake. The previous source you have used says that the lake is more than 3 miles away from Goldsboro. There are no readers searching for this term. About your second point, huh? That gives no support for the idea that anyone would be searching for that term. About the third point, I don't believe you either. None of these redirects serve readers, and in order to support having the redirects you are trashing articles. --Doncram (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: McArthur Lake (Saskatchewan) is no longer a redirect and so out of scope for RfD. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for deletion of either of the other two but further discussion may lead to a consensus about keeping or retargetting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 6 July 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.

Phantom type[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Phantom type

Rise of Buddhism[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 History of Buddhism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. You would think this redirect points to an article about the general spread of Buddhism in the world, but instead it targets the spread of Buddhism in India. WP:ASTONISH.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: rename to Spread of Buddhism would seem a good solution to me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out that Spread of Buddhism already exists. So i suggest to retarget to Silk Road transmission of Buddhism instead, which makes more sense.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None. There's discussion of Buddhism rising and spreading throughout. (For that reason, I would not have created such redirects, but now that they exist, we might as well put them to use.) --BDD (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BDD. The only use of this redirect that I can find is that it is linked from The Historians' History of the World, where it refers to early Indian Buddhism and could easily just be a regular link. Otherwise, it seems to be linked only from user space and project pages. 'Rise of Buddhism' could be the emergence of Buddhism in India, the development of pre-Mughal Indian Buddhism or the spread of Buddhism through Asia. History of Buddhism avoids guessing at intent if someone is searching. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:39, 7 July 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.

Rise of Assyria[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 Assyria#History. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling for deletion or anything, but I feel like this should redirect to a section. I don't know which section. I don't like these redirects that drop you off in a big article and no indication of which section the reader should look under.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:38, 6 July 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.

Higgin's anomalous blue[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 retarget to Polyommatus nephohiptamenos. Thanks, Aymatth2! -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. This is the common name of a species, Polyommatus nephohiptamenos, which we have no article about. The article about another species, Gallo's anomalous blue, had this name until I moved it. Until the article about this species is created, it should be red. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:32, 6 July 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.

Anal Cujt[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) 15:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target page. Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a typo so of course it's not going to be in the target page. J and N are right next to each other on the keyboard, so it's an easy mistake to make. WP:RTYPO applies and WP:NOHARM (the bit about redirects, of course) should be considered as well. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The search engine is smart enough these days to correct many single-letter typos like this: simple:Special:Search/Anal cujt (deliberately picking another wikipedia version where this redirect doesn't exist), Special:Search/Anal cumt, etc. I wouldn't bother mentioning this if the redirect were years old, but it was created just weeks ago. In 2018 it's basically unnecessary to create redirects like this. Perhaps not a strong enough reason to delete what's already been created (particularly when it's unambiguous), but certainly a reason to think twice before creating any more in the future. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it's unnecessary, it exists and is not likely to get deleted, since precedent is to keep it. This isn't really the place to be bringing up an argument like this. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep as plausible misspelling per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recently the search box has been upgraded to suggestions based on typos. With this new development in mind, I would rather not keep misspelling redirects to profanity. Deryck C. 14:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your last point: WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED. Is a "redirect to profanity" really hurting you, especially considering the actual profanity it links to that is covered in great detail? Getting rid of a redirect to profanity doesn't erase that profanity. You'll live. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's closer to the nonsensical Anal Cult AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deryck C..- MrX 🖋 18:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. The anonymous editor above is right to note that we generally ought to avoid creating redirects like this, but that's neither here nor there: the redirect has been created, and in the absence of any evidence that it is inaccurate, confusing, defamatory, etc. there is no reason to delete it. I'm also concerned by Deryck Chan's argument, which seems entirely contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, one of our most important policies, insofar as it seems to advocate applying different standards to content using profanity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:20, 12 July 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_July_6&oldid=1079936903"