Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2018.

Template:Uw-1[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) 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous CNR that while created in clear good faith, has obvious transclusion problems compounded by the fact that the target's categories could wreak havoc if someone makes a mistake.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or replace with something that will serve the same function but won't cause problems when transcluded per the nominator, although "dangerous" is probably overstating things. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 10 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.

Gremloids[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 Hyperspace (film). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be converted to DAB page. Hyperspace (film) and Lord Buckethead are both plausible targets for this redirect, and as neither is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a DAB page should be used Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Opinion changed, see below[reply]

  • Overwrite - the redirect does not need to be deleted to be converted into a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator did not make any suggestions about deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an update Gremloids Party was created on 9 July, so this would suffice to add this to the legacy section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 10 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.

Floral foam[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 Floristry#Technology. Much obliged for the addition of the content. Seems this is amenable to most! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not mention anything about this subject. What if someone needed to find out more about floral foam? Colgatepony234 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I firstly created floral foam for redirecting to oasis, the green foam. It is about the object, not really the floristry. I wonder why the green foam gone? I retarget to Smithers-Oasis#Products.--Octra Bond (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is redirecting to Floristry (or Delete without re-targetting as none of the targets is ideal atm). While it's true that the target currently doesn't cover this aspect, it is very closely related and should cover this aspect in future improvements. Note that Foam and Phenol formaldehyde resin may also be redirect alternatives as mentioned in the redirect page, but neither of them cover the "floral" aspect at the moment. Linking directly to Oasis is misleading and promotional (the redirect directly influences Google's search index for instance). The company is only 1 manufacturer among many other companies in this branche, albeit probably one of the biggest and best-known. Keeping such a redirect connection would be a bit like redirecting "operating system" to "Microsoft". A general-purpose term should link to a general-purpose article, not to 1 specific manufacturer. GermanJoe (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if multiple companies use the term, it may be good to create a stub article. Otherwise, redirect to Smithers-Oasis as the inventor of the foam product. [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both a stub or a short 1-2 sentence mention in Floristry would probably work as a start to avoid this recurring question. GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a non-commercial article covering its application, basic chemical features, aswell as a mention of - minor - possible health risks as possible ref. GermanJoe (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added a short 3-sentence mention in Floristry#Technology as suggestion for a possibly workable solution. But of course feel free to change and improve it as needed. GermanJoe (talk) 17:21, 9 July 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) 19:52, 9 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.

Keath Ledger[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) 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible typo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 9 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.

Brian Gilmartin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Brian Gilmartin

Wikipedia:BODYCOUNT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Wikipedia:BODYCOUNT

WP:MINIMUMDEATHS[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. A lot going on here. I think most of the early Support comments were intended to be Delete but, even if not, this is Delete, mainly per Thryduulf's rationale, which holds the consensus nicely. Arguments about redirects from WP:SHORTCUT -> User:Essay are not particularly strong: these have a long history, and there is not a clear, consistent practice, often having to do with the author's preference, the content of the essay, and our somewhat confusing rules on what is an essay. Still, that's not carte blanche, and many folks below (including the creator) feel the shortcut in question is indeed disruptive. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross namespace and it's being used at WP:ITN/C like it's authoritative --LaserLegs (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is my first RfD I don't know all the shorthand, sorry if I made a mistake. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this redirect is disruptive to the operations at WP:ITN/C for which it is specifically designed. It circumvents codified policies and guidelines. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The content at this redirect is being cited as policy when it is not one. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the essay should be maintained in user space alone, and not cited as if it is in WP space. The redirect needs to be removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:MINIMUMDEATHS as a redlink was long cited in jest. Redirect is clearly an attempt to confuse. ghost 00:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously. It's worse than useless since it's masquerading as policy when it's not. Davey2116 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support A callous and obnoxious redirect. Please get rid of it soon. Zagalejo^^^ 03:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and label as humorous - I think this shows in stark terms how arbitrary our ITNC criteria are, and it's funny for that reason. Banedon (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the comments above are actually discussing the merits or otherwise of the essay, not the redirect to it. If you wish for the essay's content or labelling to be adjusted then discus that on it's talk page or nominate it at MFD. This discussion is solely about whether the redirect to it should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I have no issue in principle with essays having WP: shortcuts, indeed I don't have strong objections to this essay having one if it develops further, but this shortcut is disruptive because it implies (and is being used to imply) that there is a threshold of deaths above which a story will be posted to ITN when that is explicitly not the case - the death toll is just one of the considerations and two events with the same death toll may have different outcomes. Indeed there are many discussions, going back years, that explicitly reference this being a redlink which is the state it should permanently. This essay is never intended to be any sort of policy or guideline, but rather something similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, so even ignoring the history, the shortcut misleads as to the essay's purpose and content. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I generally err on the side of allowing shortcuts, even to essays, but the existence of this redirect is being frequently and blatantly misused to imply a policy or guideline that doesn't exist. It's causing disruption and far more harm than good. Modest Genius talk 10:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and delete WP:BODYCOUNT too I'm fine with letting the user keep it in their user space, and I'm an anti-deletionist, but this shortcut is intended to create the appearance of a policy where there is none. Stories which would otherwise be considered newsworthy, such as deliberate targeting of journalists rather than simply a mass shooting, are slapped down because not enough people died, citing a policy that doesn't exist. It's good faith on the author's part to try and compile the arbitrary and hypocritical past ITN decisions into precedents of just how many people have to die before it's a story, but that only empowers everything that's wrong with ITN by legitimizing just how arbitrary this all is. ITN can only function on a case-by-case instance, and this only makes that harder. In short, this redirect is problematic because it lacks any clear benefit, and there seems to exist a consensus that it does more harm than good, rather than being benign. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Everymorning moves the essay to WP space. Currently the redirect gives this the status of an wikipedia essay, whereas its actual location makes it a user essay. These things are different entities, with different levels of individual and/or community authorship. --LukeSurl t c 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Know I am going against the grain here, but there are plenty of redirects from wikipedia space to user space so that is not an issue in itself. It is clearly labelled as an essay so there is no attempt to deceive. If others are missunderstanding it then that is on them. AIRcorn (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created both this redirect and the WP:BODYCOUNT one also being discussed here, as well as the essay to which they both redirect (currently at least). I certainly had no intention of portraying a WP:USERESSAY such as the one these links redirect to (User:Everymorning/Things that won't get posted to ITN) as a Wikipedia policy, or as anything other than the essay that it has always been. People may, as Aircorn has pointed out here already, cite one of the redirects as indicating a policy, but if they do, they are simply wrong. Thus claims that I was trying to "create the appearance of a policy where there is none", as claimed by BrendonTheWizard above, are patently false. So the question is then: is there something inherently misleading about a cross namespace redirect from Wikipedia to User namespace? AFAIK there is not, and WP:CNR and WP:USERESSAY say nothing to that effect. If you really want to delete this, though, there are almost 900 other redirects where you might want to set your sights next. Everymorning talk to me 03:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly didn't mean to criticise you or your essay, which does no harm. But the redirect is being cited incorrectly by numerous editors as if it is a policy. The easiest way to prevent that is to delete the redirect, leaving the essay as it is. Modest Genius talk 10:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors, even experienced ones, mistake essays and policies (BRD being a prime example). While deletion is easy, it would be better to educate. So far I have only seen one instance of this being used in a policy type way so this all seems a bit premature (link). Although to be honest I am not seeing any real problems with how it is being used at that discussion as editors cite essays all the time to support their argument. No one citing it is saying it is a policy, it is just other editors who disagree with it being used as an argument who are talking about it being a policy. Also we have plenty of essays that begin with "WP" so no one should really be just assuming it is a policy just because it is bluelinked. This just seems like a bit too much like a kneejerk reaction and subsequent pile to me. AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply My statement was that this redirect itself creates the appearance of a policy, not that it was intended to do so. I made sure to explicitly state that the essay was good faith on the author's part. I neither implied nor accused its creator of trying to deceive users, and I very clearly stated that this was not made with malicious intent. That being said, I maintain that so far each time WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was invoked, it was done in such a way that it does in fact create the appearance of a policy, and I can't see any scenario in which editors would invoke these shortcuts without suggesting that it holds weight whether implicitly or not, whether intentionally or not. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 11:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aircorn and WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyone who is being deceived by this shortcut is not doing any due diligence, i.e. following the link and assessing the content and standing of the page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think Everymorning was trying to create the appearance of a policy, the issue here is that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS has been used as a red link precisely because "We don't have a minimum death requirement" (see diff showing historical usage). There may be 900 other redirects to user space but I can't see any of them being used disruptively at ITN/C. Keep the essay if you want, if you move it to project space I'll raise my objections with it, this thread specifically is about the redirect. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more than one comment above relates to the general case of WP: shortcuts to user essays, and normally there is little to no problem with such redirects. However, for the reasons I and others have noted (principally that there are many history references to this as a page that does not exist with the implication that it should not exist) this specific redirect is an exception to the general rule. A different redirect to this essay would not have the same problems. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that is a good enough reason to delete though. Because some users a while ago wanted a red link to show shouldn't mean that we can never turn it blue. If anything it just confirms that this is the most natural name for a redirect to that essay. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • In most circumstances I would agree with you, but this is (as noted several times) not most circumstances. The problem is that it distorts the meaning of the comments, used for a long period of time, which is and was "there is no, and should not be, a minimum deaths requirement." While this could be an argument for content at this title, this is not the right content for it - it would need to either be a policy/guideline about what the minimum deaths criteria is or a page explaining that there is no such criteria - there has been repeated consensuses that there should not be one. This essay is neither - it is an essay attempting (and imo failing) to be a Wikipedia:Common outcomes-type chronicle (it focuses on only one factor that is at best a minor consideration, and sometimes not even that, while ignoring the actual considerations). Go and read the various discussions where it is linked, and see how it is actually disruptive in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Creator here again. I have just added a note to the section of my essay to which this redirects making it clear that it is not a guideline or requirement or anything of the sort. When I created this essay's section about death tolls I was not aiming to overturn established consensus on the lack of an absolute minimum death requirement. I was just trying to bring examples of ITN nominations to one place and see what kind of patterns emerged as to whether those with death tolls above/below given values were/weren't posted. I have no idea, however, if this will be sufficient to address concerns expressed above e.g. by Thryduulf. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @IntoThinAir: nominator here, I don't agree with your essay, but I don't care if you keep it. A number of people have commented on how the redirect is disruptive, my question is: how is it helpful? What purpose is the redirect serving? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I have thought about this issue more I think that both of these redirects do not serve any beneficial purpose by continuing to exist, and that they clearly are disruptive to the ITNC process insofar as they imply that there is an accepted guideline for minimum death tolls when there is no such thing. Therefore, even though I created both of them myself, I now think that both redirects should be deleted. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect as disruptive to WP:ITN/C. Regardless of the intentions of the creator of the descriptive WP:User essay, the WP:Redirect is invoked prescriptively. TompaDompa (talk) 15:10, 16 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.

Womp womp[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 redirect to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ASTONISH, Lewandowski is not the first or the last person to use this colloquial expression. Either delete or redirect to wikt:womp womp as a WP:DICDEF. — JFG talk 00:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — JFG talk 00:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Not listed in List of onomatopoeias AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - As stated above, this silly expression has been used by many others and will likely continue to be so used into the future. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom is "don't astonish the reader, so instead DELETE". How is that helpful to the reader. Clearly this is a term of some current visibility, is a meme, and will be interest to some people many decades in the future and beyond. 25 people a day are searching on it, which is not a lot, but is not nothing. To imagine that redirection to the relevant section of that article will astonish these searchers... I would ask OP what she imagines the great majority of readers are expecting instead? (N.B. the nom is incorrect now, the redirect is not just to the article but to a relevant subsection, anchored as Corey_Lewandowski#womp womp (which is the anchor name not the subsection name); this may haven not been true when the nom was made.)
Lewandoski is not the first person to use the term, but I'm sure that that applies to other terms that are redirected to their most notable and relevant user. Lewandoski's use is the most notable and probably will be well into the future (and if not, in that case we probably want to turn the redirect into an article). And he's not the last person to use the term -- of course not, notable terms are, almost by definition, used a lot by people downstream. His use is certainly the precipitating event in making this term notable.
To have this redirect to nothing is an insult to the reader. To have it redirect to wiktionary is a partial but insufficient service to the reader; the definition (which I found useful, but certainly incomplete, given the new import of the term) should be included in the article. (FWIW I changed to redirect to an anchor so changing the section title will no longer break the link). Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wiktionary. I'm sympathetic to Herostratus' argument, but I think they overstate the case for the phrase's long-term significance in connection with Lewandoski. It's impossible to know what meaning a term will take on in the future, or if it will continue to hold any meaning – it could well be the case that Herostratus is right, or that they are not – but given that uncertainty it makes more sense, I think, to point the reader to a definition that will remain pertinent rather than a section that may or may not have relevance beyond the next few weeks or months. It might be possible to add the Lewandoski quote to the Wiktionary entry – I only edit there very infrequently, but I don't believe there's anything in the relevant Wiktionary guideline that would preclude that. (I'll also note in passing that the phrase has been used in at least one high-profile incident following Lewandoski's comments: see "Man waves gun, shouts 'womp womp' at immigration protest", 6 July.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hear you... I looked at some more data. You're concerned about long-term import... I guess different people have different notions of "long term", but let's see...
The Jimmy Carter rabbit incident was 40 years ago, the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident was 25 years ago. These are both events generally to do with in US Presidents, and are not of world-shaking notability, and so somewhat comparable to the womp womp thing. The former gets 241 page views a day and the latter gets 196. I can't explain why so many people are interested in this stuff after 25 and 40 years, but apparently they are.
Looking longer term... will, 100 years from now, anybody read a book about the Trump Administration which says something like "By early summer, various poorly-received public statements (Lewandowski's 'womp womp' gaffe was particularly unhelpful) forced the President to revise his family separation policy..." and want to know what exactly "womp womp" is. Or I mean see it in some other context. Here's a story from yesterday which uses the term "Corey 'Womp, womp' Lewandowski" with no further exposition. I mean stuff like is going to leave traces in the historical record which people will want to understand even 100 years from now. Not many people, but even if it's a few why should we be blow them off?
I mean, we're *not* Wiktionary. Wiktionary is a separate project which is not even a reliable source. If people want to look up just the definition of a word (and its etymology and declension etc.) they should go there. People come here for that and fine, so we don't mind pointing people to Wiktionary when that's all there is to say about a term. But that's not the case here. There's plenty to say. (BWT the dicdef is currently included in the article; if we want to, we could also include a link to Wiktionary, which is frequently done on disambiguation pages.)
If we're going to accommodate people who (wrongly, if you want to get technical) came here for a dictionary definition, why can't we accommodate people who (wrongly, I guess) come here looking for information on a currently trending but ephemeral term?
I mean, it's a redirect. They're cheap and easy to change later on. I think your actual beef is with Corey Lewandowski#Mocking of an immigrant child with Down syndrome. It's that section, not the redirect to it, that should get your attention as being ephemeral. If that section shouldn't exist, then edit the article. If it should exist (or is going to anyway, even if it shouldn't) and there's a term that people are going to search for on it, we should accommodate them. Herostratus (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some time ago, I started Draft:Mockery, since we do not have that topic covered in its own article. If the draft can be finished and moved to mainspace, that would be a good target. bd2412 T 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like we could make a stub on the topic, it'd make a great addition to Category:Sound effects. In the meantime, Wiktionary entry does do a good job of explaining what the phrase means. However, I usually prefer keeping redirects local when possible, and Corey Lewandowski#Mocking of an immigrant child with Down syndrome has the best description of the phrase that I can find at en.wiki. If it helps, I've added a link to Wiktonary at Lewandowski's article. As an aside, "Womp Womp" is the name of a song on Sucka Free. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Soft) retarget to wiktionary I'd rather have it local, like Tavix, but this has been around for ages before Lewandowski. I can't believe I'm about to do it, but UD has this from 2006. I'm glad bd2412 made the enWikt article, so let's use it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 18 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.

Champions League redirects[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 disambiguate. I'm closing this as disambiguate, but want to make a few points. First, while there's some disagreement about these, this is the general consensus for these redirects. Second, while WP:OSE should not generally be cited, it's important to remember that some stuff exists for a reason. I think that's what the conversation below has arrived at, with other examples being useful as to how we might handle these. Thryduulf and Tavix in particular note some where disambiguation exists, but of course there are plenty of examples where this isn't the case (e.g., some NBA seasons). That brings me to my third point, which is that this conversation is about these redirects and is not broad, and should not 1. be applied to all such redirects, or 2. be considered endorsement for mass creation. Such a conversation would probably be worth having, but for now, these four will be disambiguated (I'll be moving/pointing the two lowercase ones to the appropriate capitalization).

On a more personal note, this is why baseball is good: simple calendar! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY, all these redirects could refer to the other event that also has matches in that year. 3 of these currently target the later year, but one of them targets the former year. Iffy★Chat -- 13:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as they all show strong evidence of use. Champions League 2018 was viewed over 500 times in the 30 days before this nomination for example. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the redirects above use different capitalisations. I suggest that in all cases the disambiguation page uses the correct "Champions League" capitalisation with the incorrect "Champions league" forms redirecting to the upper case version. Alternatively, we could create a List of UEFA Champions League seasons page and redirect all the various forms there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for the same reasons as above. Tomeasy T C 15:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomeasy and Thryduulf: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 20#Europa league 2018. Hhkohh (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: had I paid attention to that nomination I would have argued for disambiguation for exactly the same reasons I am proposing disambiguation above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I would imagine those searching 'Champions League 2018' were actually after 2018 UEFA Champions League Final, so I suggest redirects are retargets accordingly. That is more useful than disambiguation. GiantSnowman 10:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf (with Thryduulf's caveat on capitalisation). My suspicion is that the reader searching for Champions League 2018 today is more likely to be looking for 2018–19 UEFA Champions League, whereas a reader using the same search term a few months ago would have been more likely to be looking for 2017–18 UEFA Champions League. In other words, "2018" serves as a substitute for "current" or "ongoing", and so means different things at different times. The same can't be said of the earlier competitions, but each case is clearly both ambiguous and a plausible search term, so the benefits of disambiguation pages outweigh the costs. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of sports articles (and others) that use this format. How extensively do we want to commit to such disambiguation pages? --BDD (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I don't see it as a matter of choice - if there are redirects that are clearly useful but ambiguous it is surely our job to create and maintain sufficient disambiguation pages to serve our readers? There is a genuine discussion to be had about whether we should have one or several disambiguation pages and how to group them, but not whether to have a disambiguation page at all. 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) [reply]
    These are very popular pages, though. Personally, I've used Wikipedia to follow sports competitions, Champions League included, for years. If readers use search terms like this and get to disambiguation pages, they're going to expect to be able to do so with other years. And that's not at all an unreasonable expectation, if we've given them pages to go by. We wouldn't have to make other disambiguation pages, of course, but it seems to be committing us down a very, very long path. (Perhaps not so long—I think a bot could do it.) --BDD (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why you think this would potentially be quite a bit of work, but I don't understand why that would be a factor our decision? - Our objective is surely to do what is the best for our readers, even if that is mildly inconvenient to editors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, I want to make it clear that I oppose the retarget suggestion above as it doesn't solve the XY problem but instead makes it worse. I'm not convinced either that disambiguating would help, as the only reason the most recent one saw significant usage was because the final stages of the event were held around the 30 days before I made this nomination. Iffy★Chat -- 08:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly primary topic. 2015 should be retargeted though. Linhart (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at the proper titles. See Champions League 2009 and Champions League 2012 for a couple examples. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 18 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.

Liberal Democrat[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 Liberal Democrats. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should this point to Liberal Democrats or Liberal democracy? feminist (talk) 14:28, 9 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_9&oldid=1146027952"