Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 2, 2018.

Social libertarian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 12#Social libertarian

AIQ (language)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three letters stand for, or are meant to stand for, the ISO 639-3 code of the language. The trouble is these are very implausible: as far as I know, the ISO codes are used only in all lower case, the combination of ISO code with the parenthetical disambiguator "language" is awkward and it's unlikely that users would search in this way (if they search using the ISO codes at all: so far, this seems to have been assumed not to be the case; we do have a full and well-maintained set of "proper" ISO redirects, but they aren't meant for direct consumption and exist mostly for external wesites like glottolog to link back to us). So far, the redirects appear useless, but harmless. If there's any reason to delete them it's that at the moment there are only 33 of them (incidentally, all created by the same, all too familiar, user) and the logic of WP:RFOREIGN is applicable. So for example if a reader manages to find the article about the Algonquin language using ALQ (language) they could try ALP (language), and if this doesn't take them anywhere they might conclude that we don't have an article on that language (when in fact, we do). Additionally, some of these redirects have individual "aggravating circumstances": ARC (language) is ambiguous with Arc (programming language). – Uanfala (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as harmless and unambiguous per the nomination. Others can be created if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the Neelix precedent. The awkward "language" disambiguator implies to me that the language is actually known by these letters, which is wrong–it's simply a code. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The fact that ISO codes are usually used in lower case is irrelevant insofar as searching for (e.g.) "aiq (language)" will take one to the same target as "AIQ (language)"; and I disagree that the parenthetical disambiguation is "awkward" – the articles are about languages and the search terms refer to languages, so I don't know what other term would be used to disambiguate them. If there's a risk that these could give the false impression that other similar redirects exist (which I don't find particularly likely, but it's hard to know either way) then anyone sufficiently concerned about that prospect can create whatever similar redirects they feel are appropriate. I haven't been able to find any ambiguities relating to the other six redirects, but agree that a hatnote for Arc (programming language) and ARC Macro Language should be added to Aramaic language if ARC (language) is kept. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 4 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.
  • Well, the idea was floated about creating similar redirects for other ISO 639 codes. In case anyone tries to, they should probably bear in mind that the only person in the history of this wikipedia who thought they were useful enough to create was Neelix. And in case anyone wants to do anything with the existing redirects, here's a list: (I've only checked they match the ISO 630 codes of their targets and I've cleaned up any incoming links). – Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki[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 Wiki (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 07:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently connected. Recommend delete. Faling that, target to Wiki (disambiguation). MB 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wiki (disambiguation) as many items can be referred to as "the wiki". feminist (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of wikis (first choice) or Wiki (second choice). There is nothing on Wiki (disambiguation) that would logically take definite article other than the software, but "The wiki" will almost always refer to a specific Wiki - in my personal experience almost always Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Rational Wiki depending on context, but everybody's set will differ depending on the contexts in which they talk about wikis. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wiki (disambiguation). desmay (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wiki (disambiguation), which links to wiki, Wikipedia, and List of wikis, as well as several other of the most likely targets for the search term/link. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of wikis per Thryduulf. "The wiki" would not be used to refer to other items on the DAB page, but would be used to refer to a specific wiki, which the list compiles. A hatnote could refer back to the DAB page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wiki (disambiguation). I think there are good arguments for both proposed targets, and I agree that "'The wiki' will almost always refer to a specific Wiki", but I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which a person looking for a specific wiki does so using this search term (and if such a scenario were to transpire would that hypothetical reader, who wasn't able to search for the wiki they're looking for by name, find the list of names helpful?). On the other hand, searching for an imprecise phrase and being taken to a disambiguation page for a relevant term is unlikely to be astonishing to anybody. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:36, 4 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.

Donald Trump's false and misleading claims[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) Flooded with them hundreds 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a very recent non-useful WP:POVTITLE and WP:RNEUTRAL concern that is just a descriptive formed by a WP editor. Redirect creation seems an impulsive act during a move discussion that went against using the title, and is not useful for search, so now just needs cleanup. Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Log entry at : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's false and misleading claims Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A common and accurate descriptive phrase based on hundreds of very RS. When people search for such content, they should be redirected to the current article, rather than to the very short section in the main Donald Trump article which deals with exactly this content. (Should we also delete that content? No, don't answer, because your track record shows you believe this subject should not be mentioned at Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BullRangifer did not read the longer material then -- in the context of all "Donald Trump" in Google (currently 241 Million), it is highly uncommon. ('hundreds' is not impressive) "False" is by far the COMMONNAME as chosen by media, the phrase "False and misleading" is usually tied to insurance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insurance? Not seeing it. Even "False and misleading", without "Trump", is mostly about him. "Donald Trump false claims" is definitely good. Hopefully no one limits themselves to only one search phrase. That would be pretty shoddy research. I have many Google Alerts on this subject. "Donald Trump false and misleading claims" is one good combination of words that brings up lots of material of direct relevance, but there are other good ones, so let's compare some good search phrases (with quotes it would be too narrow):
This article is very good: Donald Trump didn't tell the truth 83 times in 1 day. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BullRangifer The title as a term should be sought verbatim or as a quote -- otherwise you're going to get just anything that has the words and not necessarily connected, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia, or several stories such as a blog having Fox news praise of Trump followed by a story condemning Hillary for false stories followed by something on misleading denture claims. Anyway, the redirects title seems simply not a phrasing in use much beyond here. The numbers are a bit interesting though, see below.
  • "Donald Trump false and misleading claims" - 22 hits. Doing verbatim only showed me three. That seems incorrectly low, but top hits are directly relevant in a USA today factcheck of his false AND misleading claims, followed by the same for Hillary, then a Washingon Post on his, and the WP Veracity article as #4. Otherwise, we do seem to get oddly different counts:
  • Donald Trump false and misleading claims clicked gave me 4,210,000 results - which is muuuuch different than 22 and oddly different from your 5,690,000
  • Donald Trump false claims shows me About 107,000,000 results - again the MAIN point there is this is over 25 times as common than the redirect title as a phrasing, so it it more likely the WP search, and since it finds the Veracity article rather than this redirect ... this redirect is just not of value to search. The minor difference from your 116,000,000 is not significant for the RfD discussion but is odd.
  • "Donald Trump false claims" shows me 23,900 hits -- this a thousand times more than the redirect title.
  • Other news - mmm today I'm finding false and misleading claims returning to be less about insurance, more about Advertising then Trump then Polident then Drugs, or if in quote it is Trump then Television advertising then drugs then Polident then banking. Even looking at false and misleading alone is mostly Advertising and then lawsuits and then Trump -- not Insurance. I don't know why the feed would shift or why insurance dropped of entirely or if it was some third search variation that was insurance-rich bu there it is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the difference in totals is related to different browsers. I use both Firefox and Explorer, and on my cellphone I use Chrome. When I search Google on Firefox or Explorer, I get different numbers.
My main point in this thread is that it's okay to have different redirects, as we have no control over how people search. Since fact checkers often use the phrase "false and misleading" in connection with Trump, it seems a natural redirect. There is no reason to delete this redirect.
There might be more of a problem with the article's current title, since "veracity" is a rarely used term, even by fact checkers. They usually use truth, false, whopper, misleading, lies, lying, liar, etc. in relation to Trump. I've never seen "veracity" used commonly in that connection, even though we all know what it means. That means the article needs a better title. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, searching within quotes narrows the searches far too much. Such searches miss a whole lot. I still don't know why you're finding insurance, advertising, Polident and banking. Maybe they're after the first page? I don't see any of them, at least not on the first page, and I don't bother going much further, since the most relevant finds are on the first page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does strike me as a plausible search term for the target so RNEUTRAL applies. If you have objections to the target then RfD is not the correct venue to discuss this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf since you said 'you' -- apparently voiced to filer -- no, this is a deletion discussion only about the redirect phrase "Donald Trump's false and misleading claims". The redirect was by-blow during a discussion to move to this as a title, which decided not to, and I said at the end of the move discussion here that I'd file for the deletion as an unnecessary POVTITLE and not a commonly found phrase that folks would search for so yes an RNEUTRAL issue. The utility in search is small since 'misleading' is unusual so combinations are highly unusual, with 'or' in 'false or misleading' is more common. Since any phrase close to this does turn up the Veracity article directly, having an unlikely to be typed phrase as a redirect is just not really useful t getting to the Veracity article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would apply only if the search included the phrase in quote marks. If not, then the search would bring up anything with either or both words, and they are both of relevance. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BullRangifer No, the mention is not about in enquote searches it is any phrase close to this turns up the Veracity article directly - so this redirect is not making a connection that search would not do without it, and actually seems a minor negative to search. A redirect title less literally close to the content such as “junk trump says” or with offensive language “shit trump tweets” would be making a connection search does not otherwise find. Having a title this close is just a minor confusion as search then misleadingly tells you there is an article plus shows the Veracity article as the second choice. Markbassett (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shit Trump Tweets is likely to stay a redlink as this is not notable. And it would be better targeted to Donald Trump on social media. I don't personally see the comparison to this redirect under discussion. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created a number of redirects, based on suggestions and descriptions used by sources. This is one of the more useful ones. I think it should be kept, even if I don't mind on some of the others. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, since it seems like a plausible search term, is naturally phrased, and isn't an egregious BLP violation (President Trump obviously has made false and misleading claims, enough to merit an article on the topic). WP:POVTITLE does not apply since this is a redirect, not the name of the title. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. There's nothing wrong with the redirect: it goes where it's supposed to and redirects aren't required to be neutral anyway. But we already have Donald Trump's false claims as well as Donald Trump's misleading claims, and I'm finding it hard to believe that readers are going to ditch all their usual search habits and start typing a long and pleonasmic phrase like that. And do we really need a redirect for every descriptive phrase ever used on the internet? – Uanfala (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint I was addressing with this was that it didn't show up in the right Google searches. It is not very useful for navigation here on Wikipedia but does nevertheless assist readers coming in from external search. You see normally Wikipedia article appear on the first page of Google results, but due to the strong SEO of the news media that generally use "false and misleading" together, that was not happening with this article. This was combined with the fact that "Veracity" is chosen for neutrality and is not the natural search term. I made a bunch of redirects and now the article appears on the first or second page for most relevant searches. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(off topic) We might all dislike the idea of all those websites performing aggressive SEO to get their pages higher up in google, but I think at least I even more dislike the idea of us doing the same. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That gets right to the heart of it. There might be more of a problem with the article's current title, rather than accurate search terms (reflected in these various redirects) which describe the actual content. "Veracity" is a rarely used term, even by fact checkers. They usually use truth, false, whopper, misleading, lies, lying, liar, etc. in relation to Trump. I've never seen "veracity" used commonly in that connection, even though we all know what it means. That means the article needs a better title. Right now it serves a good purpose, and it should not be changed until a better one has achieved a consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:07, 4 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_2&oldid=1036307135"