Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2018.

Variations of planking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 20#Variations of planking

Child's Play (2019 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close, wrong forum. Per the top of WP:RFD: "If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests." -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeking for the (2019 film) redirect to be deleted as it’s preventing the (upcoming film) article from being moved to that location. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Islamic Republic or Iran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silly spelling error - no value of itself PRehse (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elliot Soto[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) 22:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player is not with the Isotopes and is not mentioned on the page. Should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete. Just update the redirect with the team to which he has been assigned. StrikerforceTalk 16:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MiLB.com shows him currently as a free agent, which is not unusual for this time of year. Suggest leaving the redirect alone until he either signs with a new team, re-signs with ABQ or makes some other determination about his playing future. StrikerforceTalk 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a notable player in any respect.. plus it is not standard practice to redirect minor leaguers to team pages. Spanneraol (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is not mentioned at the target article, leaving the searcher none the wiser. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not standard practice to re-direct to minor league team pages. Not notable enough to re-direct to one of the teams minor league players page either even if signed.-- Yankees10 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hospitality prostitution[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) 22:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google Books search shows it's a real term for a phenomenon in some societies, which may deserve a mention in other articles, or even in its own article. But it doesn't have any mentions right now, and there are zero sources which equate it with modern Western swinging lifestyle. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A red link seems most appropriate until an article is written. --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sexy Dancers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 19#Sexy Dancers

Social libertarian[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. There is a weak consensus in favour of retargeting these somewhere, and clearly no consensus for the status quo of split targets. The actual target was less clear. I'm going to retarget them to Libertarian socialism as that has the largest numerical support but this is without prejudice to further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these articles should redirect to the same place. I'm neutral as to what that should be. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Libertarian socialism where the term is discussed with the most context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Neither is mentioned in either target, nor discussed in any depth in any other article. The term is too ambiguous for a redirect to be of any use if the target doesn't contain a definition: are we talking about libertarianism with socialist characteristics ("social" in the same sense as social anarchism)? libertarianism in the social sphere (as opposed to the economic sphere)? libertarians who like to socialise? Accordingly, the terms are rarely used in scholarship (283 Google Scholar hits for one, 284 for the other). @Smartyllama: do you want to add Social Libertarian and Social Libertarianism to the nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 28 October 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) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PARTRANS[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) 22:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cross-namespace redirect, redundant to WP:PARTRANS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary WP:XNR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not something that needs a cross-namepsace shortcut. While this is getting a lot of hits, the pattern of them does not match WP:PARTRANS or the target (although that gets several orders of magnitude more hits so it's difficult to be sure) so it's unlikely to be people looking for the target. There are American, Belgian and (possibly) Polish companies and function in the R programming language with this name that could be what people are looking for. I don't think we have any content about any of them (but I haven't looked too hard) so there is nowhere obvious to retarget to, and I have no evaluated their notability or whether they have any significant association with all-caps. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I suspect I intended to create it in the WP namespace and just messed up, but can't be sure without spending some time on it. Subsequently, another editor did create the WP namespace version of the same shortcut. Dovid (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is clear from Special:WhatLinksHere/PARTRANS that it isn't really being used anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unuseful crossnamespace redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Public Law[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 Public Law. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sample usage

Retarget to Act of Congress. In my experience, the capitalized "Public Law" is always followed by numbers indicating which specific law we're talking about: it's only ever used to refer to a specific Act of Congress. If my experience is representative, and the capitalized form doesn't really have much of any use outside US federal law, it's a bad idea to treat it as a mere capitalization variant. But is my experience representative? I don't know, and that's why I brought it here instead of boldly retargeting it. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, see the image at right, in which an Act of Congress appears under the title "Public Law 86-90". This is the standard manner of usage in this context. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection to the proposed retargeting. I can see good arguments for it going either way. bd2412 T 23:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

J Endocrinol (journal)[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) 21:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed and causes issues with the WP:JCW compilation. No idea why this even exists since J Endocrinol exists and works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Why" Probably someone wasn't sure what "J" was (or feared that someone else wouldn't be sure) and thought to create it to be helpful. Technical issues aside, I can't see how this could potentially be a problem; it looks like an ordinary example of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Meanwhile, could you explain briefly the technical issues it's causing with WP:JCW? Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The (journal) disambiguator will always trump the non-disambiguated version in WP:JCW. This causes issues with link-dependent scripts and link recognition. For instance, the 'J Endocrinol' entry in WP:JCW/J3 is not categorized as an ISO 4 redirect because the {{R from ISO 4}} template is located on J Endocrinol, and not on J Endocrinol (journal). It's also highlighted with the wrong color if you make use of link classifying scripts.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete. [Thank you for the details]. "Unnecessary disambiguation" should be kept if harmless, but if it's unnecessary and harmful, there's absolutely no reason to keep it. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except this redirect is harmless. "Harmful" in context of a redirect means that it is obstructing searches, unnecessarily offensive, discouraging the creation of a desired article, or things of that nature. It absolutely does not mean "causes problems with tools some editors use" - if redirects are causing such problems we fix the tools. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Causing problems" is by very definition, harmful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problems" it causes is for a minor tool used only by editors, said tools can and should be fixed. It is helpful for, and not harmful to, readers therefore there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, unambiguous and useful. I think the minor inconvenience to editors apparently caused by keeping this is outweighed by the greater inconvenience to readers caused by deleting it. (From a cursory look at WP:JCW/ALPHA, which I've never encountered before, the list appears to contain primarily items that are not journals, so this redirect is the least of its problems.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link is useless. There is no legitimate reason that a reader would ever search for 'J Endocrinol (journal)' (it gets something like 10 pageviews per year, likely mostly coming from a 'what links here'). That you don't personally use WP:JCW does not mean that it is not used. Whatever issues exists with WP:JCW, it is not a reason to actively resist making the list more more useful and work as intended. As a side note, it is patently false that most items on the listings aren't journals, and listing only journals isn't the point of the listing in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "There is no legitimate reason that a reader would ever search for" this is both silly and somewhat concerning: who on earth are you to determine what is or is not a "legitimate reason" to search for something? The word "legitimate" appears nowhere in any of our policies or guidelines in relation searches or any other kind of reader behaviour, nor should it. This is a plausible search term, one of tens of thousands of redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, the utility of which is acknowledged by a well-established consensus. That WP:JCW "is not used" or that there exists any "reason to actively resist making the list more more useful" are not claims that I've made; what I have argued and will repeat, however, is that any marginal inconvenience to that project page and editors who have found a use for it is outweighed by the harm done by deleting this or any other plausible search term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What could possibly be confused with "J Endocrinol"? Nothing. No reader would ever search for "J Encocrinol (journal)" because there is nothing that would be confused by this (hence the under ~10 views/year). And if they were to, somehow, search for it (akin to say "J. Appl. Physiol. (journal)", they would get the journal as he first result. This is not a plausible search term, and there are demonstrable drawbacks to keeping it. Delete this horror. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existing redirects from unnecessary disambiguation are most often useful. But a redirect does't automatically become useful by virtue of being from an unnecessary disambiguation. In fact, most possible such redirects aren't useful at all (for any article you can imagine at least two (and often more than two) plausible disambiguators and then for each redirect to the article create a new redirect with each of those disambiguators. That would be madness, wouldn't it?). For such a redirect to be useful, there has to be some conceivable potential for ambiguity. This is not the case here: it's very difficult to imagine a reader who types the string "J Endocrinol" would believe that it could possibly also refer to anything other than a journal. This redirect is well, unnecessary, and so if it turns out that it causes inconvenience for some project work, then it should be deleted. But Headbomb, there are redirects out there for which the unnecessary disambiguation is plausible (like Synthese (journal), or JOSA (journal)). How do you intend to work around their existence? – Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't cause issues normally. For JOSA, the acronym gets classified as a journal (correct behaviour) and still gets classified as a generic redirect (correct behaviour), and for Synthese, the bot can figured out that it can just use Foobar [i.e. Synthese over Synthese (journal)] since the non-(journal) version points to the same page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Many journals are disambiguated with "(journal)" so it is plausible that someone will search for any journal, including this one, using that search term. It doesn't matter if it isn't actually ambiguous - we don't require readers to know the entire contents of the encyclopaedia before being able to find the article they are looking for. None of the "demonstrable drawbacks" you claim are actually anything of the sort they simply evidence of bugs in the tool. We do not delete plausible redirects just because they cause inconvenience to an internal tool, rather we fix the tool. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you propose to 'fix the tool' exactly? Have a J Endocrinol (not journal) redirect created to tell the bot that J Endocrinol (journal) shouldn't be used? Again, the journal isn't disambiguated (that would be fine), the issue is that the abbreviation is disambiguated, when it should not be, which is harmful.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tool should be able to cope with situations like this. How it copes is a matter for those who develop/use it not for those of us who don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tool should not be made to cope with GIGO crap when GIGO crap can be simply fixed at its source, or have 'solutions' that require mistagging redirects as a hack, or creating a bypass of a bypass redirect like J Endocrinol (not journal) or similar (J Endocrinol (don't use this)). No one uses J Endocrinol (journal), many use WP:JCW. Delete the pointless redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that this is not "garbage" it is a perfectly plausible redirect that is potentially useful and gets uses. We don't delete plausible redirects just so editors do not have to fix bugs in their tools. And yes, if the existence of a redirect is causing problems for the tool this is a bug with the tool, not evidence of a problem with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this redirect useless and confusing. The same argument that justifies us would justify adding a redirect of this sort to every journal abbreviation. I agree with making such a redirect for every title which might conceivable represent something other than a journal, and every such abbreviation, but ffor the majority of all journal titles, titles which do contain the word journal ,it makes no sense whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why there would be any issue with adding this sort of redirect for every journal abbreviation? For many of them it is quite plausible that they could be ambiguous J Ethol could be a person and J Energy a pop group as just two examples. Given this is it is not the slightest implausible that a standardised naming scheme to guarantee that a link will always take you to the correct article will be desirable to someone. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because every of those redirect would create more headaches than they solved. This has been explained multiple times now. If some abbreviation is ambiguous, then it can be turned into a proper dab page (e.g. Ann. Phys.). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you have attempted to explain why some redirects currently cause headaches for a small number of editors. You have completely failed to explain why the encyclopaedia should (let alone must) be modified for the benefit of a tool used by some editors. From my understanding the tool would have exactly these problems if the abbreviation had one another use but the journal was the primary topic, when neither a disambiguation page nor deletion of a redirect could be justified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is the source code for the relevant bot available on Github or somewhere? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a good example of a WP:COSTLY redirect. I don't buy the argument that it's a plausible search term and I do not think there is harm to deletion per Headbomb's second reply to Arms & Hearts. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a "J Endocrinol" where "J" doesn't mean "journal", so this disambiguation is completely redundant. Given that it also makes WP:JCW difficult I think I agree with Tavix above on the WP:COSTLY point. Deryck C. 13:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a redirect that gets a few views a month and is redundant to another redirect is hardly "useful" and becomes WP:COSTLY when it affects other things (like tools). Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brrr(Onomatopoeia)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by user:Writ Keeper. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary – 333-blue at 00:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue:(Keep or turn into DAB) So you are saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxom is unnecessary as well, it does not have anything but a Wiktionary redirect? If that is there then why is this termed as unnecessary? If not just for the wikitionary redirect this page could be turned into a small Disambiguation page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT- Intead of turning the specified page into a DAB if Keep is not agreed with by the community, the page [Brrr] that currently redirects to the fabric company should be turned into a DAB instead. For this reason I change my mind to (Keep, if Keep not decided upon then delete and Brrr should turn from it currently being a redirect page to a DAB. ) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term due to the malformatting and recent creation. The hatnote at brrrº should link directly to wikt:brrr if necessary, instead of making readers click a soft redirect and then click again to get to useful content. I would not be opposed to a disambiguation page at Brrr given the length of the hatnote, but again any dab page should use a {{Wiktionary}} box rather than linking to this redirect. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue: & @59.149.124.29: & other members of the redirect notice board. I have made a request to delete the page being concerned. I have the right to request speedy deletion of that page as I am the original aouthor of that page. I have already converted brrr into a disambiguation page. I am sorry for any of the troubles that I may have caused for the people over here at redirect notice board. Sorry.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_November_12&oldid=1036305950"