Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2018.

Draft:Rice gum is a famous youtuber with almost 5 million subscribers. Rice gum has contributed to the society by being the most lit person ever. Rice gum is 18 years old[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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic 'title' (more like a mini-article in the title), no inbound links. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete., probably speedy delete as vandalism. no possible use, and the text would be speedy deleted as an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced this was vandalism, but certainly it is of no benefit to anyone as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. Probably a copy-paste or "which field do I type in?" error, not vandalism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam/promotional, in case CSD G11 doesn't take. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 4 June 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.

The Dreams That Stuff Is Made of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics and How They Shook the Scientific World' is a 2011 book by English physicist Stephen Hawking.[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless - effectively a dictionary definition of the target as a redirect. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:44, 3 June 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.

Wheels Entertainments Ltd + Wheels Entertainments Ltd. + Wheels Entertainments Limited + Wheels Entertainment + Wheels Entertainment Ltd + Wheels Entertainment Ltd. + Wheels Entertainment Limited[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 delete. Someone can add this to WP:DAFT too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left behind after target page was moved - appears to be a set of possible renderings of the target's name. Not useful, anyone searching for any of these would find the article just fine. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This title was created by HMSSolent as a redirect to Wheels Entertainments following a request at AfC, then moved to Wheels Entertainments Ltd (which remains as a good redirect). It appears to have been a misunderstanding of a request to create multiple redirects as a request to create one long one. As HMSSolent moved the page (fixing their earlier error) 35 minutes after creation in 2013 there ins't any need to keep it around. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G1 patent nonsense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 4 June 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.

Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward As Science: Kant, Immanuel Stock Image View Larger Image Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward As Science[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 delete. ansh666 19:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly unlikely search term, contains seemingly copy-pasted alt-text ("Kant, Immanuel Stock Image View Larger Image"). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks like they were trying to create a redirect from the full title of a work to our article at a shorter title - which is a Good Thing, however they copied much more than just the full title. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving redirect behind to Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science, a published [1] (translated) full title of the work. (Or delete this and create the correct redirect; same end result).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect created, to not muddy up this discussion further (the creation of one redirect should not impact the deletion of a different one). -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I switch to delete.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete sending this to G1 as mistakenly created redirect AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 4 June 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.

Wikipedia:MOS:[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. Consensus is that these are useful, but I do want to call out Oiyarbepsy's comment (ideally all of our MOS redirects would look like this) was particularly persuasive (colons versus slashes aside). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Some more added by SMcCandlish:]

Delete; similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 8#Malformed MOS-related redirs. Pinging participants of that discussion: (SMcCandlish—Radiant!—Gimmetrow—SandyGeorgia—WJBscribe). "MOS:" is a pseudo-namespace that does not need to be preceded by "Wikipedia:". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP. These are the epitome of harmless, and all those the stats thing is working for are showing evidence of use. Deletion will bring no benefits to anybody, while inconveniencing those who use them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most, but Move UNIVERSE - Almost all of these already have a mainspace equivalent (e.g. MOS:BIO), and there's little use in training anyone to type WP:MOS:BIO. But while I originally created MOS:UNIVERSE, CambridgeBayWeather moved it to WP:MOS:UNIVERSE (pinging here, as there seems no notice on his talk page). Move it back to the original location to place it correctly. MarginalCost (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to train anyone to type WP:MOS:BIO, but equally there is absolutely no harm in having redirects from both forms so that whichever someone does use it takes them to where they want to go. I noted in my edit summary when creating WP:MOS:IDENTITY that that was not the first time I'd trued to use that shortcut to reach the page, the page view statistics for that redirect and the existence of all the ones I didn't create demonstrate that I'm not the only one to use that format on occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: CambridgeBayWeather has now recreated the core MOS:UNIVERSE shortcut, so there's no need to move the project-space one. It can be deleted with everything else. MarginalCost (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and basically useless. These patterns are simply not how we use shortcuts. We do not need to keep and retain every conceivable shortcut, including typos, that could be tried by someone very new who did not yet grok our shortcut nomenclature, or typed in error by someone who does. We're tolerant of plausible-typo redirs when they help get readers to articles, but much less so for typo redirs in projectspace. Also, shortcuts exist primarily for experienced editors to use on talk pages. I can't think of any sensible rationale for a "NS:NS:FOO" shortcut (whether both instances of NS are real or pseudo-namespaces). They're actually confusing. "Wikipedia:MOS:BIO" strongly implies a non-MoS page, perhaps a ranty essay, about MOS:BIO.
    Restore the UNIVERSE one to its original, sensible MOS:UNIVERSE name, per MarginalCost. Having moved that without leaving a redirect behind (fixed to point to the real page) was an outright error.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've added 4 more. These were the result of reverting undiscussed, unconstructive moves of disambiguation pages. While normally I would have done "Move without leaving a redirect behind" in such a case (unless the name being move back away from had a reason to exist, like being an alternative name for an article subject, or a previous stable name that had been used and then a move-war broke out), I let the {{R from move}} redirects remain behind, because this discussion is still open and might (I would hope not) conclude that "Wikipedia:MOS:FOO" redirs are actually desirable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For all the reasons I've given above, such redirects are very much harmless and deletion will bring no benefits so leaving them to exist is desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, ideally all of our MOS redirects would look like this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (except WP:MOS:UNIVERSE) — They may help users. There are not any negative effects of keeping them. Interqwark talk contribs 03:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG I had created Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG because at the time the look-ahead help for the search box in the upper-right corner was failing. At the time I could not remember the exact spelling of the template name and hoped to get helped by typing Wikipedia:MOS:DISA... I believe the look ahead bug also affected WP:MOS:DISA... See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 140#Search autosuggestions or typeahead are not reliable for the bug report and T114403 for the mw:phabricator report. It appears the bug still exists. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - While the bug report from 2015 still shows as open/unresolved I did some testing and believe the underlying issue for why I created the Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG redirect has been resolved. The problem was that the search indexer was filing with pages names starting with MOS: and H: in the wrong namespace meaning the search hints were both failing and at times giving suggestions for pages that did not exist as clicking on the search suggestion landed the person in the wrong namespace. The redirect was added so if someone realized that MOS: was failing that they would then try WP:MOS:... or Wikipedia:MOS:... in the search box to find the template. Thus, I'm now supporting deletion of the Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG redirect. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are harmless and other reasons above, and like any comprehensible redirect, they aid namespace discovery (i.e. they can serve as a disambig warning to anyone making a new page with a similar title). ··gracefool 💬 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I always type "WP:MOS" when I want to get there. That's why I moved the original. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, discussions like this make me believe that it's time to propose that the "MOS:" prefix become either its own namespace (maybe done longhand as "Manual of style") or a alias for the "Wikipedia:" namespace. (I'd support the former over the latter since making "MOS:" an alias for the "Wikipedia:" namespace will probably create some technical conflicts with some existing titles, such as WP:STYLE and MOS:STYLE ... which is probably not the best example since they both are redirects that target the same target, but most likely, there are some examples of pairs that target different targets.) That, and now we have MOS:EL, a disambiguation page representing pages with the prefix "MOS:", but technically, the aforementioned page is in the "(article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP, Thryddulf and others. I'm a copyeditor, and whoever tried to fix what wasn't broken has cost me a lot more wikitime trying to find what I used to find quickly and easily in the MOS. Miniapolis 14:46, 9 June 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.

MoS:[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. Consensus here seems less strong than the related WP:MOS redirects, but it seems folks think these to be useful. I acknowledge that, yes, per WP:R#D6, XNRs generally aren't grand, as well as a longstanding aversion 'round these parts to return to the proliferation of pesudo-namespaces we once had. Still, the arguments that these are likely to be helpful and that spread is likely to be minimal are convincing to me. Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces suggests MoS doesn't have strong support, and while I'm not about to change that based off of this result, perhaps in fact it might. Pseudo-namespaces aren't set in stone, they're what we want. Some of the ones created after the 2014 RfC might be reasonably considered on an individual basis, but I find a consensus to keep this nomination as a whole. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

"MoS:" deviations of "MOS:", which is a pseudo-namespace. The standard versions of these already exist. It is important to remember that pseudo-namespace redirects are technically in the mainspace. Should we accept the ~30 of these redirects and endorse them as appropriate, reject and delete them, or accept the ones that currently exist but discourage new ones? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A similar number of "Mos:" redirects exist. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, although this form is already soft-discouraged for new ones, but it hardly matters since new Manual of Style pages are pretty rare. Originally, this was a prevalent form, and it's harmless. Additionally, various old edit summaries aren't editable and have cited these MoS redirect versions; there's no point in making those redlinks unless there's some actual benefit. There still aren't any actual "article" articles that legit start with MoS: , so chance of confusion is unlikely. (Note: there was an ancient debate on this topic in 2007, FWIW. Probably the occasional other one too I can't find as easily.) SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP per SnowFire, and all the previous discussions listed which ended in "Keep" (I can't find a single one in either of the linked RfDs that ended in anything else). If there any actual issues with any of the individual redirects then list those separately and explain how they are harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire and Thryduulf: The number has increased by a lot (assuming all that existed at the time were included in the most recent rfd discussion which ended in no consensus). Would you guys support adding a note to WP:PNS (or elsewhere; feel free to suggest another place) stating that no more MoS: or Mos: redirects should be created? Otherwise, their unclarified existence is an implicit endorsement. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I viewed the most recent RfD and there were a large number of individual listings, all of which ended in "keep" so I'm not sure why it says "no consensus" above. Regardless of that, I would not support such an addition per WP:CREEP and the lack of any harm they are causing. If there are any individual ones, now or in future, that are actually (rather than just theoretically) problematic then they can and should be dealt with individually. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 3#MoS: was closed as "no consesnsus". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, it was the earlier one that was multiple nominations (I'd flipped them in my head, sorry). However Rossami's final sentence there really does some up these redirects (and indeed the guiding philosophy of RfD before it was hijacked by deletionists) "While many redirects would not be preemptively created if we had to do it over, deleting them is more trouble than it's worth. Any minor value to any user is enough reason to keep a non-harmful redirect. Redirects really are that cheap." Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP agree with SnowFire & Thryduulf --rogerd (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the "MoS:" ones. It's actually verging on conventional in running text to abbreviate the name of the guideline as "MoS" not "MOS", so it's not impossible someone would prefer to use shortcuts with the "MoS" spelling. While the vast majority of shortcuts are all-uppercase, there actually is a tiny contingent in favor of mixed-case ones (WP:Battleground), etc. I don't agree with them, but I've never seen a consensus record that mixed-case shortcuts are impermissible. I think there have been previous failed attempts to delete a bunch of mixed-case ones. That said, if someone plans to create more of these: A) You do not have consensus to replace the displayed "MOS:" ones in the Manual of Style pages with these stylized versions; the "MOS:" (not "MoS:") psuedo-namespace was arrived at by a consensus discussion, reconfirmed with a later one (to remove redundant "WP:MOSFOO" shortcuts from display in the actual pages), and is the live consensus of 99.999% of editors using that version not a "MoS:" version. B) If you make more, the onus is on you to properly WP:RCAT-tag them (i.e., use the same categorization templates for MoS:BIO or whatever as are found in MOS:BIO. It took me hours to cleanup the extant Manual of Style shortcuts, and I'm not going it again).
    However, these redirects are not actually WP:CHEAP at all, but live in mainspace. Every non-article we put in there increases risk of collision with a real-world topic, and adds complexity to mainspace maintenance. While we have consensus for the actual pseudo-namespaces to exist in mainspace, making up new ones is a bad idea. I weakly support this one exception only because it matches real and frequent usage of the "MoS" abbreviation.
    Delete the "Mos:" ones,
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: "They increase the risk of collision with a real-world topic" (slightly paraphrased) - only infinitesimally, and should this theoretical collision ever actually occur the problem can be immediately and trivially solved by overwriting or retargetting the redirect and adding a hatnote - which is exactly what would happen if the collision was with a MOS:... redirect. Things that wont be an actual problem in the very unlikely event they happen are not reasons to delete useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not add a hatnote at a real mainspace article to disambiguate a nearly-unused WP-internal shortcut, per WP:SELFREF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: We have the {{selfref}} template whose entire purpose is to do exactly that. See for example the notes at Help, Style guide (where Manual of style redirects), Salting, Reference desk, and over 2000 other transclusions. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Self-reference tools. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. We do this for things substantive to the community or at least frequently used by it, not a typo redirect of interest to half a dozen editors. The vast majority of project page titles and shortcuts are not represented with any mainspace redirects or DAB hatnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary XNRs (WP:R#D6). Typing "mos:numbers" (in any case) in the search will take you to MOS:NUMBERS → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The MOS pseudo-namespace is sufficient for linking. As for WP:R#K2: a duplicate article is not likely to be created. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JJMC89: Not everybody uses the internal search engine to reach pages, many people get where they want to go using case-sensitive methods of navigation. If the all-caps redirects worked to get people where they want to go then they wouldn't have created these redirects in the first place. WP:R#K5 - many people find these redirects useful and there are no benefits to deletion. WP:R#D6 explicitly does not apply to psuedo-namespace shortcut redirects, which is exactly what we are discussing here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:R#D6 applies. "MoS" is not one of the psuedo-namespaces; "MOS" is. The benefit is to remove mainspace pollution. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "MoS:" is a pseudo-namespace - it is not approved of by everybody, but it is exactly the same as MOS: in that regard. It is not a namespace alias like WP: but that's not the same thing at all. What is this ambiguous with? How is it "polluting" the main namespace? Just because you don't like something does not mean that it is bad, and it doesn't magically make irrelevant guidelines relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • MoS does not enjoy broad community support; therefore, it is not a pseudo-namespace. [W]hen a prefix is used by multiple shortcuts, and has broad community support, it is referred to as a pseudo-namespace. The following prefixes do not enjoy broad community support. [...] MoSWP:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces Pollution as in not part of the encyclopedia but resides in a content namespace. Whether I like something or not is irrelevant; my !vote is based on the guidelines. The shortcut guideline says MoS is not a pseudo-namespace, so WP:R#D6 applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • That line about not being a PNR unless it has broad community support is frankly bizarre and has changed since I last remember reading it - prefixes used as shortcuts have always been PNRs whether they have broad community support or not, simply some PNRs have broad community support and some don't. However given the evidence of this discussion and the widespread use these redirects are getting I disagree that "MoS" does not have broad community support - it clearly does not have universal support, but that is not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 11 June 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.

Help:Template names, variable names and parameters depending on a variable or parameter[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. That's good enough for me, no harm in mirroring meta if we can. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly unlikely search term owing to its length, no inbound links. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:20, 3 June 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.

Florencia 13 and Mara Salvatrucha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 12#Florencia 13 and Mara Salvatrucha

Template:Update needed[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 Template:Update inline. I'll go through and change these, and update the pages and this as I do so (help appreciated). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had to fight AnomieBOT on a few, but I believe I've now updated all usages, as well as some project pages (most notably WP:AWB/TR). I've left user(sub)pages alone. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Template:Update inline. When someone types {{update needed}} or {{dated info}}, they probably mean to immediately place a "needs update" notice, rather than to place one at some point in the future as {{update after}} does.

Note the redirects currently have 95 existing transclusions that would need to be updated, either to use {{update after}} directly or to pass the date via |date= instead of |1= and |2=. Anomie⚔ 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll gladly update the usages if this goes forward, but given that there are some uses, not all were created before the proposed target, and the 3-4x different usage between the current and proposed target, some more input would be nice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance, anyone have additional input? I'm still happy to change these, but again, I'd like to see at least a little more discussion given all the usages, etc. Bueller?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. The current targeting is confusing and leads to incorrect uses of {{update after}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I'd meant to list this one myself years ago while doing WP:WikiProject Inline templates cleanup work, and forgot about it. Remember to update the template documentation; it likely mentions some or all of the redirects as pointing to it. May also need to look for syntax differences; templates often cannot be merged/replaced without using AWB to fix up the template calls and their syntax.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 4 June 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.

Voting and elections[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. This was close, but I think the discussion here leans delete. I'll preface this by saying that "per WP:XY" is a valid but boring reason, and repeating it doesn't offer much additional as this isn't a !vote, but where the rubber hits the road is really in the replies. There are good reasons to ignore WP:XY, but it essentially boils down to there being a place where these are discussed or at least mentioned together. I am unconvinced by the keep !voters that Election is the clear intent for someone using this, especially that Voting isn't. Indeed, as suggested below, there are even other possibilities where this could reasonably be useful. I'm not certain there isn't some other good target for this, but that just gets us further and further down the hole. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, note that voting is a separate article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also the words are too common to be used in a regular article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Elections always involve voting, but voting also occurs in contexts other than elections. In other words, "Voting and elections" can refer to "Elections" alone but not to "Voting" alone. As such, Voting is not a viable target, and WP:XY (which concerns "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets") does not apply. I think this is a sensible target for a plausible search term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Someone using this clearly wants to know about voting in the context of elections and our election article will be much more useful for this than our voting article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something has "and" in the title doesn't mean it's XY - that only applies where people are looking for two separate things that have no connection with each other and are not discussed together anywhere - neither criterion applies here per mine and Arms & Hearts comments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the "delete" examples at WP:XY have some sort of connection, it is when Wikipedia treats the subjects differently that makes it XY. Here, we have voting and elections that are different articles, hence my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our goal must always be to do what is most helpful for the reader, not what makes things tidier for editors, even if that means not following essays, guidelines or even policies to the letter (and WP:XY is a good example of a well-intentioned observation that is often actively unhelpful for determining what should happen in any given situation). Specifically, while "elections" and "voting" are separate articles, the user of this redirect is not looking for two separate things - they are looking for how voting is used in the context of elections. That single concept is covered at our Election article but not at our Voting article so there is only one valid target. So not only is WP:XY not relevant here, it would unlikely be the most helpful course of action for readers even if it was. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Someone looking for "how voting is used in the context of elections" would use that search term. If someone is looking for "voting and elections", they would use that search term. In both cases, the search engine will be useful to guide readers to the best article(s) for their query. In the case of "voting and elections", it would equally be "Voting" and "Election", which is where WP:XY comes into play. -- Tavix (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem with that logic is simply that "voting" and "election" are not equally useful for someone using the "voting and elections" search term because they are not looking for two separate things but the combination of both of them, which is dealt with at one article and not the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yet another with split participants over an WP:XY issue. I'd like to get away from relisting these, but that needs more input!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap, and someone searching for this term is probably interested in elections and the process of casting a ballot. I'm not confident that the MediaWiki search would get them to the right place without this redirect, as all the search results on the first page merely cover different voting methods. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Classic WP:XY. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy and Steel1943: please see above for a detailed explanation of why this is not an XY situation, let alone a "classic" one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it, but I don't agree with it. The essay rather blatantly lays out that a mix of terms such as this one is an WP:XY issue since it cannot redirect to any specific section of a page that explains both terms entirely (see Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons for comparison), and I agree with that outlook, thus why I believe the nominated redirect should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As above, this is not XY because people using it are not looking for an explanation of two separate terms, they are are looking for content about one in the context of the other - and content about exactly that exists in one of our articles. I'm not disagreeing that XY says what it does, I'm disagreeing that XY is relevant to this redirect, and not a single one of the arguments made for deletion have addressed this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...Right, and I believe that it is relevant in this case since this redirect represents a topic/subtopic association, but since the subtopics had its own article, this redirect could reasonably target Voting or Election, meaning per my interpretation, the WP:XY issue exists. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a pseudo-XY because the two words put together in the context of that text string don't refer to disconnected topics, but to voting in elections, and the better target for it is Election. It's the same kind of case as Drinking and driving, which redirects to the best article for what is almost certainly meant by anyone using this phrase, Driving under the influence, rather than to Alcohol intoxication, or to Driving, or being a redlink.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SMcCandlish and Arms & Hearts: Electoral college (i.e. where electoral vote redirects) could also be a valid target in this case, which makes WP:XY applicable here. That aside, drinking and driving is common parlance while voting and elections is not (though voting in elections may be). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah. Most election and voting systems don't have an electoral college or equivalent; it's an odd case, not a norm. On the and/in thing: non-native English users frequently have trouble with our prepositions and other short words (as any content editor here knows from copyediting!), and we're tolerant of typos in redirs. Even native English speakers are not regular from area to area or register to register on this stuff, anyway. I grew up in a area where "try and" (as in "try and win", "try and get there on time") was used as a substitute for "try to" with more frequency than the logical construction. That's exactly the same kind of conjunction-for-preposition substitution. PS: "Voting and elections" actually is common [2], including in high-end material, just not the most common (which is probably "voting in", aside from "voting on" which is usually different – voting on an issue, which is about the topic not the process). Self-correction: even "voting on" as a substitute for "voting in" is common; e.g.: "Voting on the election of senators shall be by secret ballot."[3] English is simply irregular on this point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:RFD#DELETE No 1: since we don't know what the user wants, the redirect gets in the way of a search. (As in so many RfDs, if this redirect wasn't already there, we wouldn't invent it). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 4 June 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.

Bubblegum rap[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 Trap music#Influence and cross-pollination. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is not mentioned in the target. the timelines for Rap music and bubblegum pop do not seem to have overlapped and a search on the web does not seem to show a connection between the 2 subjects Dom from Paris (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget to Trap_music#Influence_and_cross-pollination. Bubblegum rap is a notable term and it is used widely in pop music"bubblegum+rap"&num=50&tbm=nws. Maybe a section can be added to Trap music and redirect there. KingAndGod 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it may be a notable term but it has nothing to do with the target of the redirect. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It aids search and bubblegum pop is often associated with rap music so the term is relevant as well - Lil Yachty, Camila Cabello, Bhad Bhabie, Gucci Mane. KingAndGod 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it redirects to a subject that has nothing to do with any of the above pages. You need to find a better target than Bubblegum pop. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, a section can be added to either article for this to redirect there. KingAndGod 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then do that then! I am not saying that it is not a notable term or that people will not search it but if they do they certainly will not be looking for bubblegum pop. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added a section Bubblegum_pop#2010s:_Bubblegum_rap. Retarget there. KingAndGod 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't mean to be picky but you have written in bubblegum pop that Bubblegum rap is also known as trap rap and the page Trap rap redirects to Trap music wouldn't it be more logical to have a section in trap music that deals with trap rap and bubblegum rap rather than it point to a genre of music that disappeared 40 years ago just because it starts with the same word? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I guess you're right. Trap music is the better location for bubblegum rap. KingAndGod 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we're talking about music that mixes traditional happy-sounding commercial pop with hip-hop styles (MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice both come to mind), wouldn't the more general article 'pop rap' be a better place to go? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 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) 15:23, 3 June 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.

Wikipedia:SOUL[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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the soul of Wikipedia delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention shortcut. Apparently there used to be a dedicated page to the "Soul" videogame, long gone. — JFG talk 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to WP:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marginally, since the project is inactive, for use if/when people want it Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can always be recreated if and when a subproject (or other project entirely) wants it. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete leave it open for someone to make use of Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 3 June 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.

Elle boutique[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) 03:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The boutique is a international chain of stores in at least a dozen countries according to their website. No mention of it in the target (the Indian edition of the magazine by the same name). No mention of the store in Elle (magazine) either. So with no good target, delete. MB 02:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense to me as there is no mention of the stores in the article. MB 18:34, 2 June 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) 15:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing redirect and confusing keep logic. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Elle mag's ElleBoutique.com site were covered in the article, I might lean that way, but right now we have two not-covered-in-WP topics vying for a title we don't actually need to have until one or more is actually notable or at least non-trivial enough to warrant coverage we might redirect to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 3 June 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.

Trap Dumplings (Pinkomega)[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) 03:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the target page relates to this redirect. There is a song call Dumplings, but are the rest of the words really needed. Clutter. Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the name of a music video for a song in the album, mentioned in the article. Interqwark talk contribs 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've added Trap Dumplings to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the present time, the only one of these words mentioned in the article text is "Dumplings", "Pinkomega" appears only in the title of one reference, the word "Trap" does not appear anywhere. While there is discussion of music videos there is no indication anywhere that "Dumplings" is one of the tracks with a video, nor that (some?) videos have different titles to songs. Without this the redirect misleads people who know what this is into thinking we have information they are looking for, and just leaves other people baffled. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing and unhelpful Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Isn't this probably a lyrical content reference? If it is, it might be worth keeping, if a well-known song from the album uses that strange phrase, and we don't have an article on the song. E.g., I'm glad that Teenage Wasteland redirects to Baba O'Riley (though the analogy is imperfect because the latter's a song article not album article with song coverage).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just looked at the lyrics on three different sites and none of them include the word "trap" in the lyrics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      A Barnstar Point for Diligence!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seem to be a WP:NONSENSE delete, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said earlier, it references the music video and George’s alias that goes with the song. I do understand that the music video is not referenced on Pink Season (Pink Guy album), but PinkOmega is referenced in a citation. The music videos for the songs could also be added to the article since the videos with just audio are. However, since the name of the music video isn’t yet referenced in the article and the alias PinkOmega isn’t referenced in the body of the article, the redirects that I created may not meet the criteria for notable redirects and, perhaps, should be deleted. Interqwark talk contribs 02:42, 4 June 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.

AND CO[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 12#AND CO

Template:Db-short[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. Killiondude (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isone of the templates that redirects to the speedy criterion for "no context" Unfortunately, it frquently confuses new comers, because the criterion for a1, is not that the article is short, but that the article gives insufficient information to tell what the article is about -- e.g. John is known as a baseball player. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. CSD A3 (no content) may also apply to very short articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Simply being short is not a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a confusing misinterpretation of CSD A1. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sort of descriptive csd template redirects are heavily used by users who type instead of twinkle. I remember when {{deleteagain}} was deleted, and thinking that it would've driven me nuts if I hadn't already had the bit. So please at least link to {{db-nocontext}} or one of the other approved redirects in the deletion log when this is closed, to minimize the time wasted in hunting down something they're allowed to use. —Cryptic 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has a lot of drama and mischief potential for zero imaginable gain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author" delete. I was honestly baffled when I got a talk page notice about this, but I guess I made this redirect nearly ten years ago. Yeah, I definitely did not understand what A1 meant. Fully support removal. Sock (tock talk) Sock (tock talk) 10:27, 5 June 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.

ENDS marketing[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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this phrase means. Not mentioned at target. Creator's edit summary was "synonym", which makes even less sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Oiyarbepsy, my blind spot. It stands for "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Systems".[1] The term seems to be more used by medical professionals, and Wikipedia seems to have decided to use "electronic cigarettes", hence the lack of mention. HLHJ (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ WHO. "Electronic nicotine delivery systems" (PDF). pp. 1–13. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
  • Keep and add the phrase to the target. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the phrase to the target. This term of art and the acronym for it are well-attested in the source materials (I remember it from when I was editing in that category, before I ran for my life from that drama factory).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Electronic nicotine delivery system and ENDS redirects to Electronic cigarette. Marketing of electronic cigarettes is currently in AFD. There is a section on marketing under Electronic cigarettes so that would be an appropriate target. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AngusWOOF, I'm afraid the Marketing of electronic cigarettes article originally contained ~everything in that section (disclosure; I created it), but it has lost most of its content since Friday and is currently the subject of a scope RfC. I have some hope that the article may recover. If it does not I would certainly support a redirect of all its redirects. HLHJ (talk) 05:12, 5 June 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_June_3&oldid=1142586808"