Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2018.

Massteria[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: term is evidently a novel, obscure, and tongue-in-cheek portmanteau of mass hysteria. Usage on GBooks comprises a couple of jocular references and one occurrence in song lyrics; also the title of an evidently non-notable filk zine. No incoming links. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 23:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or in any other article, and not especially commonly used to refer to the target or any other topic covered in the encyclopaedia. This could be a plausible typo for Masteria or (Joe) Masseria, but (as in the case of William walles below) a disambiguation page would not be appropriate when we have no discussion of anything actually known by this name. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious neologism. Couldn't find any actual use of the term anywhere on the web. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 23 October 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.

Liquid crap[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) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a likely search term, along with Liquid feces & Liquid fecal matter. Delete all. MB 21:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've tagged added the additional redirects that MB mentioned but did not explicitly nominate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, especially the latter two. Diarrhea is a notoriously difficult word to spell and not everybody will even know the proper medical term so these seem like very useful redirects to me with a clear and unambiguous target. The redirects aren't old enough (1 day short of a month) for page view stats to be a reliable indication of utility. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these terms are also used for other topics... like topics concerning sewage, other forms of illness; and some animals don't produce solids... -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case there should be a disambiguation page. The search results (if seen, not guaranteed) are not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. I'm not convinced by 65.94's reasoning: though the term is related to sewage it's hardly a plausible search term for that; and diarrhoea isn't an illness but a symptom with various causes, so these can't really refer to "other forms of illness". It may be the case that some non-human animals ordinarily produce liquid faeces (this is regrettably outside my area of expertise), but any confusion that might arise on the part of someone who searches for these looking for that phenomenon could be resolved with a hatnote pointing to the relevant section of Feces or Defecation. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - as giggle-inducing and silly as they may seem, they plausibly aid in navigation. Hell, I work in medicine. My nose is in charts all day and I still can't be relied on to always spell diarrhea right. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cymru.lass:} Veering off-topic but a friend at university taught me a useful mnemonic for the British spelling: Done In A Rush, Run Home Or Else Accident. Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 23 October 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.

Independence Day-saster[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the dab page pointed to has this entry. Apparently, Independence Daysaster was a 2013 non-notable TV film. Onel5969 TT me 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is a knockbuster (knock-off of a blockbuster), so could be used to redirect there, if someone were to add a line for the topic... or someone could create a list of knockbusters -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The film isn't discussed in any depth in any article: there are mentions in articles about some people who appeared or were involved in it, but none are substantial enough to be a useful target. The film is also listed at List of science fiction films of the 2010s, but that isn't a viable target either: either the film is notable, in which case the redirect should be deleted per the final point of WP:RDEL, or it isn't, in which case it shouldn't be included in the list. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 22 October 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.

Elaine Mason[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Deryck C. 12:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor target; Elaine Mason, a nurse, is mentioned in four articles, whereas this Elaine Mason is only mentioned in one article MB 19:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Sorry... is there a better target available? If so, just change the target, no need for a redirect discussion if so. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nurse Elaine Mason is mentioned a few times in Stephen Hawking, so that may be a better redirect. But I'm not sure that would be a more likely target. Creating a DAB and Elaine Mason (nurse) & Elaine Mason {sculpture) covers everything, but since there is no Primary Topic and only two entries - probably wouldn't survive either. Maybe just delete? MB 13:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no primary topic, then a dab page only requires two targets - see WP:NOPRIMARY. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I converted this to a DAB. MB 14:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DAB looks like a good solution. Thanks for everyone's insights. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 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.

Australindian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete without prejudice against a fresh redirect to Indo-Australian plate (or a related topic) if any participant of this RfD feels strongly about it. Deryck C. 14:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such word is used to refer to indigenous Australians. Paul Carter (academic) coined this word to refer to the colonial empire of the Indian Ocean, or the landmasses of the Indo-Australian plate. DrKay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is definitely nothing to do with Aboriginal Australians. It doesn't even make sense in that context. Gnangarra can probably confirm this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget Australindian to Indo-Australian Plate, which seems to be the only notable topic that the term is used to refer to. Deleting would be preferable to keeping the current target though. Delete Australindians, which appears to be much less frequently used (7,700 Google hits vs. 119,000 for "Australindian") and doesn't seem to commonly refer to anything discussed in the encyclopaedia (somewhat to my surprise, there's no real evidence that this is in use to refer to Indian Australians). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 22 October 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.

Bretish[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 withdrawn. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such word. DrKay (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Bretish" appears to be an old word that was used to described Bretagne (Brtittany) [1] (18th century book) -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only google hits I get are misspellings of British. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an old word, it'd hardly show up in a standard search, since it's obsolete, and vastly pre-internet, pre-digital, pre-electronics, pre-electricity. Here's another 19th-century book that uses it to refer to Bretagne (Brittany) [2] -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As demonstrated by google searches, Bretish is predominantly a mistyping of British. Similarly, searches on wikipedia are more likely to be really searching for British, but we're sending them to the wrong article. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Books turns up several instances of this meaning, and I haven't been able to find anything pertaining to any other meanings that are discussed in the encyclopaedia. Someone who searches for one of these as the result of a typo for "British" (which seems fairly unlikely, "e" and "i" are not very close together on most keyboards) will very quickly become aware of their mistake and will be able to rectify it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED is quite clear that Bretish is an obsolete spelling of British and that British is an obsolete term for the inhabitants of Brittany or the Bretons. Those google hits are misspellings of British, being used in its now obsolete meaning of Breton. DrKay (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure what this has to do with my !vote, or what you're proposing. You seem, though, to be using the (perhaps overlapping but quite distinct) categories of "obsolete spelling," "misspelling" and "mistyping" (or typo) in ways that confusingly occlude the distinctions between them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't believe me, look in a dictionary. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disbelieve you (though I don't have a printed dictionary to hand and can't find the word in any online dictionaries). I simply don't know what you're getting at, or why or how the OED should affect my thoughts on these redirects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:01, 23 October 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.

1993 ISAF Sailing World Championships[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. Deryck C. 12:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such event. The link in the one article that linked to it turned out to be an error for the redlinked 1993 event in Windsurfing World Championships. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've fixed the nomination template. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The ISAF Sailing World Championships were first held in 2003, and while there are a large number of other sailing world championship events I can't find that we have an article about any with a vaguely similar name that took place in 1993. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:58, 22 October 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.

William walles[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. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect to William Wallace as it isn't a misspelling at all. Only 23 pageviews since January 2018 and I don't see any reason keeping this redirect at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • They could be searching for William Walles, which is a jewellery firm in Japan, and what the page was originally about before it was turned into a redirect. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand the nomination: if "it isn't a misspelling at all" then what is it? The correct spelling? The issue here isn't plausibility but WP:XY, as this could plausibly be a typo for the current target, or for William Wales, William Wallis, William Welles, or at a stretch William Waller or William Walls (not to mention the non-notable jewellery company, which is a plausible search term but isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia). There are too many possible targets for disambiguation using hatnotes to be viable, and we can't realistically make a disambiguation page solely out of misspelled "see also" entries, so deletion strikes me as the best option. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can be the misspelling of several different names and not the correct spelling of anything. Deryck C. 12:16, 29 October 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.

Vulgar 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 retarget to Vulgar#Language. Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. We have shown that both "profanity" and "vernacular" are important meanings of this search term. Most editors also accept that these dominant topics are in competition and disambiguation is an acceptable outcome. Vulgar#Language, a retarget proposed late in the discussion, was the most plausible destination and gained support of many earlier participants. Deryck C. 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should point to the Profanity article, per WP:Primary topic and WP:Principle of least astonishment. "Vulgar language" commonly refers to profanity. Readers are not expecting to be taken to the Vernacular article when clicking on or typing in "vulgar language." Rcsprinter123 created the redirect in 2012. The redirect continued to point to the Profanity article until this IP showed up and changed it in 2017. There has recently been edit warring at the redirect page. I've brought the matter here for discussion and so that the edit warring stops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another option, the redirect could point to Vulgarity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've corrected the nomination template. @Flyer22 Reborn: for future reference, when nominating a redirect for retargetting the "target" parameter in the template is for the current target not the proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, yes, I know. It was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I reverted the redirect when checking the edits of (now indef blocked) user Brandon5015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seemed obsessed with making bad edits to just about all our articles in the field of "bad words". Two days before my revert I had put a final warning [3] on their talk for this little gem. So this was just a revert of another bad edit, which in turn was a revert of this good edit. Recently another incarnation of same blocked user came along: 75.170.21.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also blocked for redirecting dozens of articles to Profanity.- DVdm (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, regardless of any past disruptive editing by Brandon5015, Brandon5015 is correct that redirecting the term to the Profanity article is a far better choice than redirecting it to the Vernacular article. His edit was not a bad edit in this case. In fact, it was a restoration of the WP:Status quo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the dictionaries, and per some comment below, Brandon5015 is not correct, and WP:Status quo suggests we keep the situation that was in place between 28 September 2017 and 4 August 2018, almost a year. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the dictionaries support having this term redirect to the Vernacular article. And that's not how WP:Primary topic works anyway. Only you and one other editor thus far have supported the term redirecting to the Vernacular article. Well, unless DGG below was saying that the page should be a disambiguation page rather than creating a separate disambiguation page for it or adding some hatnote at the top of the Vernacular article about it. All others have agreed with me that the term should redirect to either the Profanity article or the Vulgarity article. And since the IP changed a significantly longer-standing redirect destination and I would have reverted the IP had I seen it (the redirect has been on my watchlist for years, but I missed that change), I do not consider the IP change to be the status quo. Furthermore, it's not like that page has a lot of watchers. It likely only has a few, and you and I are two of those few watchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checked yesterday, and only nine editors thus far watch the redirect. have edited the article. It was eight yesterday. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checked today: Polling is not a substitute for discussion - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And where did I state or imply that it is? Nowhere that I can see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, though: Polling is clearly suited for discussions such as this one. The supplement page you pointed to is clear that polls are used to help determine consensus, as is happening in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and change to a disam note: the term has both meanings. The traditional meaning is indeed "vernacular", the use from antiquity through the 19th century--its use to mean profanity is a description and use from about the 16th century to the present (in the 18th and 19th century it could mean either) , DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, this is about WP:Primary topic -- about what readers are most likely to be expecting when they click on or type in "vulgar language." Surely, they are most likely expecting what is stated at the Profanity or Vulgarity article, not what is seen at the Vernacular article. As we know, words evolve. A traditional meaning is not the same thing as what is usually meant by a term today. We don't, for example, have Gay as a disambiguation page or two articles for the term simply because the original meaning did not refer to homosexuality. Yes, we do gave Gay (disambiguation), but we also have "Gay" for the primary meaning of the term and how it evolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there is no primary topic. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I and others clearly disagree with you on that. I see no valid reason to have "vulgar language" redirect to a disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to vulgarity because WP:ASTONISH — that article actually explains the term. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to vulgarity per User:DVdm's rationale. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Profanity as it originally was.[4] Accesscrawl (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget. The use of the phrase "vulgar language" to refer to vernaculars is now outdated, but it was historically by far the most common, and I can imagine even now it's probably more likely to be the one encountered in contexts in which readers are likely to follow it up on wikipedia. Now, the contemporary meaning is rather broad (and hence more typical of a dictionary than an encyclopedia) and it's covered at Vulgarity#Language (Profanity, already linked there, is only one possible aspect of it). Given that we favour specific encyclopedic topics over lexical meanings, it would seem at least weakly preferrable to keep the current target; however, that would necessitate the addition of a hatnote, and I really don't like the idea of the article on vernaculars to start with "Vulgar language" redirects here. I think I would go for disambiguation as the lesser of two evils. A draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we shouldn't follow a new meaning over an established and continuing-to-be-used meaning, especially in this case where the proposed alternate topic is outright wrong: as noted above, vulgarities are distinct from profanity, since rarely or never do they denigrate the holy. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vulgar disambiguation, as somehow Profanity is also listed there as vulgar language (recent edit?) so three possible targets. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language. This is a slight modification of the AngusWOOF proposal. This is as specific as it can be while minimizing surprise. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language per Mr. Guye. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language, which covers all the bases. I don't think the current target is quite right (historical meanings should be taken into account but shouldn't be given precedence over modern usage), but nor is profanity – vulgar language surely encompasses all sorts of words and phrases that don't quite rise to the level of the profane, in either its religious or secular sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not confident we can reach consensus here, as the discussion favored profanity, vulgarity, and vulgar. That being said, there does seem to be consensus to change the target, and given that the three popular options went largely in sequence, perhaps some more discussion might change some folks' minds. Worth a shot
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:03, 21 October 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.

T:ITV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect, per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_112#RFC:_On_the_controversy_of_the_pseudo-namespace_shortcuts: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases.

Especially confusing as {{ITV}} is a separate template; this redirect is used less than 10 times Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The fact that Template:ITV, which is used on 114 pages, exists is the exact reason that a shortcut could not be created there. {{Infobox television}} is used in 45,241 articles so having a shortcut is quite reasonable. Perhaps {{ITV}} should be moved to {{ITV television}} --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Galobtter. In addition, this redirect it not used in any article so will not cause any issue. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to be a keyboard shortcut. It doesn't have to be used in articles, nor would one expect it to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, my point being that removing it won't cause an issue which would need bots to deal with. --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you'd rather inconvenience actual people rather than annoying a bot? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this "shortcut" is not particularly convenient to use in the first place (see below), but it's also in the article namespace: it shows up in searches and so potentially inconveniences readers. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is very convenient to use as a keyboard shortcut compared to typing in the whole name of the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AussieLegend. A shortcut is not unreasonable, and it's unlikely to be confused with any encyclopaedia topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep saves time as AussieLegend besides the moving part. What harm does it do anyways? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. First off, this is not a template shortcut. If anyone tried to trasclude that in the usual way, they will only get a red link like this: {{T:ITV}}. This is because a transclusion expects the thing transcluded to be in the template namespace and this "shortcut" is not in the template namespace. If this were to be used, the article namespace will have to be specified with an additional colon: {{:T:ITV}}, and this is highly unintuitive. Second, as pointed out by the nom, there's consensus against the creation of redirects from the article namespace into the template namespace. We do have a few dozen similar redirects mostly inherited from the older days (see Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace) but they really only make sense for templates that function more as project pages, and hence are there to be linked to, not transcluded, which is not the case here. Third, even if this were in the right namespace, it wouldn't really be a felicitious shortcut, as it looks much better suited to be a shortcut for {{ITV}} rather than {{Infobox television}}. Fourth, infobox templates are used only once in an article so there's little need to make their aliases cryptically short, and given that they're used in a prominent position at the top of the article, there are good reasons for having them as explicit as possible: {{Infobox TV}} is probably the shortest shortcut we should have. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. It's NOT supposed to be transcluded. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would want to do that. As far as {{ITV}} goes, that's a very ambiguous name and should probably be moved. You seem to be missing the point that this is supposed to be a keyboard shortcut; it's a lot easier to type "T:ITV" (5 characters) than "Template:Infobox television" (27 characters). --AussieLegend (✉) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is its intended use then? Is it only for linking? – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. Its primary use is to avoid having to type 27 characters when going to the template page, something that has to be done almost every day, mainly to confirm parameters after editors do things like this. Put Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters on your watchlist and you'll see what I mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it's used for linking. In that case, you can ignore points #1 and #4 of my comment, but #2 and #3 still stand. Again, it is easy to confuse with {{ITV}} (regardless of what that other template's name really ought to be). And, more importantly, such pseudonamespace redirects are legacy material, they should be avoided whenever possible, and their use generally makes sense only in cases where it's very common to link to a given template (as for example for T:DYK). This shortcut has only about half a dozen talk page links, despite having being listed, inappropriately, as a shortcut at Template:Infobox television for two years – that's nowhere near enough to outweigh the disadvantages. This infobox doesn't seem to have any more need of such pseudoshortcuts than the average template. And there are generic ways for editors to save time typing its name (like {{ltb|Infobox TV}}) that don't involve the creation of shortcuts that pollute the article namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: no, it isn't used for linking - you've completely misunderstood AussieLegend's comment. This is used as a keyboard shortcut, to aid editors maintaining the template. Your characterisation of peseudonamespace redirects (PNRs) as "legacy material [that] should be avoided whenever possible" is incorrect - new PNRs are discouraged unless there is a good reason for them - linking is just one example of what might be a good reason but ease of access to the template page (as explained by Aussielegend) is another (c.f. T:AC / T:ACOT). Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that's what they're used for! Sorry, my bad! If I hadn't misunderstood the point of the redirect, I would have spared you all the long rationale, and my comment would have been briefer: "Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." Needlesss to say, people are completely free to avail themselves of the standard features on their web browsers (or whatever software they use to edit here). – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." That's not relevant because it's nobody's favourite shortcut. It's a shortcut for anyone to use, as explained. Personlly, I'd rather not have to use it at all but when you have so many people making silly changes to infoboxes over and over again because they don't bother reading the instructions, it's a necessary evil. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T: where "T:" redirects as a class gained overwhelming consensus. The arguments explain the difference between linking and navigation - that the two are different is why T:ITV and {{ITV}} leading to different places is not at all problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was from 2010, and the current consensus on the issue is from the RfC of three years later: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. The redirect we're discussing was created two years after the RfC, and so shouldn't have been created in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's confusing and/or misleading for T:ITV and {{ITV}} to go to different places, per precedents such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#T:N. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call that a strong precedent (not that we are actually bound by precedent) - one person mentioned it as one of multiple reasons to delete, someone else endorsed all the reasons to delete and that was it. Nobody else even considered it. I'm not seeing any evidence here that anybody has ever actually been confused by T:ITV not redirecting to Template:ITV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 15 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) 10:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AussieLegend.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Redirect to Template:ITV. Assumption by average reader would be for it to redirect to Template:ITV. Matt14451 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Psuedo-namespace redirects exist for and are used by editors not readers, so we need to consider whether editors will try and use this to find Template:ITV and be surprised, and there is no evidence at all that this is happening as that template doesn't need to be regularly worked on or referred to independently of articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By contrast, Template:Infobox television is a regular target for article maintainers like me who need to check parameters and their syntax when editors regularly make invalid edits to the infobox in articles.[5][6][7][8][9] Those are just from today and there's already another one. When you're checking infobox instructions so often, having to type the full name of the infobox is a right royal pain in the arse. It makes no sense to make article maintenance more difficult. All that encourages is for editors to stop maintaining articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not the exceptional circumstances that would necessitate the existence of a strongly deprecated kind of redirect. There are thousands of templates whose intricate documention editors would need to check daily and we don't – and shouldn't – have redirects for all of them. This is precisely the kind of problem that individual editors solve by the use of standard browser features. You can create a bookmark for this template, and – if you prefer typing rather than clicking – you can try the "smart keywords" feature available on many browsers which allows you to associate a shortcut for a page, so that if you type for example "itv" in the address bar, you would be taken straight to the infobox template. – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I could do all of those things and if I decide to, say, edit Wikipedia on my phone I have to do those things there. If I then edit Wikipedia on a different PC I have to do them there, unless it's not my computer in which case I have to take a different tack. Then, if there is someone else who decides to maintain the articles (you perhaps?) they have have to go through the same rigmarole on their devices. However, this redirect works for all editors who edit Wikipedia regardless of what device they're using, where they are, what browser they use etc. As I said, we shouldn't be going out of our way to make article maintenance more difficult. That's just going to reduce maintenance and a lot of articles are going to end up with errors that could have been repaired but aren't because of narrow-mindedness turning away those who formerly repaired the articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 29 October 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.

Hp[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 HP. Consensus is clear after relisting. Please fix any incoming links. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current system is confusing as people are redirected to the Horsepower page when looking for HP Inc. or other pages at HP. It especially confusing for users because Horsepower is commonly written as HP (uppercase) and HP Inc. writes hp (lowercase) on their computers as their logo. And many links currently on HP are lowercase. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1#hp – wbm1058 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page per nominator after fixing the incoming links. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to HP per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation. There are times when upper- and lower-case should point to different articles, but I would argue against there being a primary use for either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget to HP: this is a long dab page and almost all of the entries there seem to be abbreviated using upper-case letters: if a reader is trying to get to one of the three or four lower-case ones, they would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I've had a look at the incoming article links to hp – I don't see any direct ones, but the ones that use piping are of two types:
    • [[....|hp]]: about 845 such links, in only four of them is the target different from horsepower (one link each for hp-FEM, Hewlett-Packard, HP and hit points).
    • [[...|Hp]] : 96 instances, most of which are infobox fields of the form [[Railway station types in Germany|Hp]]
      All this shows that at most one out of ten links to hp are for something other than horsepower. As far as linking go, this is a very clear indication of a primary topic, and that appears to have been the consensus in various discussions (Wbm1058 has already linked to the previous RfD, and to that I can add two more discussions). So far, this favours the status quo (a primary redirect, and a hatnote at the target pointing to the dab page). However, it's possible that the actual usage by readers might not be aligned with the topic structure. If a challenge to the primary topic is to be mounted, I guess the way to do it is to turn the redirect into a dab page (listing only the lower-case entries) and then seeing what proportion of readers click on each. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lengthy edit history, now with over 80 revisions, does belie the idea that horsepower is the clear primary topic here. There's been a lot of back and forth since the first May 2004 attempt to retarget this. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the amount of input at the previous RfD, I think a little more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to HP per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. Uanfala's comments on the existing links are appreciated, but the sticking point for me is the search engine: it's very common to use a lowercase search term to look for an uppercase acronym or initialism (and we have hundreds if not thousands of redirects that function in this way – Bbc, Npr, Cia, Uae, etc.) and someone who searches for "hp" is more likely to be looking for one of the other "HPs" than they are to be looking for the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget in agreement with A&H on the search engine. This is something that I think about this nomination because people are lazy and don’t capitalize searches all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 October 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.

Interstate 464 (Kentucky)[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) 17:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about I-464 on the New Circle Road article. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a hatnote at Interstate 464 (which is about a highway in Virginia) that says: "For the former planned I-464, see Kentucky Route 4.". Kentucky Route 4 is a redirect to New Circle Road. When the redirect was created, the article stated "It was planned to be interstate 464 but the project was cancelled by Kentucky department of transportation.", which was referenced to a book: Cross Reference Directory, Greater Lexington published by City publishing in 1981. This mention was removed by Morriswa in July 2016 [10] with the edit summary "Removed information on "Interstate 464" (can find no reliable sources that state that this was supposed to happen". By this time in the history though the reference quoted above (I have no knowledge of it's reliability) had become divorced from the mention. I'll ping the US Roads project about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding your comment: Is "Cross Reference Director, Greater Lexington" a book or a map? (It's listed as a book but that title implies a map). If so, unless there is some information that backs that up in the map, I would not rely on that map alone. It may be a copyright trap or an early proposal that was never approved. See Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. If it's book that lists official proposals, that's different. Dave (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: I have no idea. It was citied using the {{cite-book}} template, which is why I called it a book, but that's not exactly conclusive. Google has no knowledge of it other than this one article and its derivatives, so that doesn't help either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
  • Delete without prejudice. Even the roadgeek sites have no entry for this road. This appears to be an entry created based on a trap street in map in a directory. Should someone come forward with a corroborating source for its existance, I'll reconsider. Dave (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sourcing can be found showing that the road was planned to be I-464. Dough4872 23:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @Moabdave and Thryduulf: Worldcat lists Cross Reference Directory, Greater Lexington as a periodical (and tells us that it's only held at two libraries in Lexington, Kentucky). It does seem more likely to be a map though, as the same publisher produced similarly titled volumes for other areas in the southern U.S. (e.g. Greater Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Mississippi coast). I'm inclined to assume that the text previously in New Circle Road (quoted by Thryduulf above) was a faithful representation of the source, and also inclined to doubt that the road was a trap street or similar (much more likely, given the contextual information, that it was "an early proposal that was never approved", as Moabdave suggests). But it does seem to have been a fairly inconsequential plan, apparently mentioned only in a single quite obscure source, so I think the encyclopaedia can do without a mention of it (unless, I suppose, we have a Lexingtonian Wikipedian who can take a trip to the library to have a look at the source) – which makes the redirect unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 22 October 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.

The Pioneer(daily)[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) 16:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there already exists a redirect with the proper spacing, so this typo redirect is unnecessary --- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, {{R from move}}, harmless, unambiguous and very well used (582 hits this year, 789 last year). Deletion will not bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. "Unnecessary" is not a convincing rationale and rather begs the question. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: please explain how deletion of this redirect specifically will benefit the Wikipedia given the points raised by Arms & Hearts and myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As pointed out by Godsy, we don't create redirects for such implausible typos, and the "R from move" rationale doesn't apply as this was the title of the article for less than two hours back in 2006. – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects from moves are kept for two reasons - attribution and maintenance of links/search targets allowing people to continue to find the article. Whether the continued very high traffic levels are the result of it being briefly at this title is impossible to say but it is not impossible. It is however irrelevant - deletion would inconvenience a great many people without bringing any benefits to Wikipedia or anyone else. My question to Godsy also applies to you - that we do not create redirects from typos generally judged implausible is not relevant to a redirect that has already been created. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no attribution requirements in this case, and yes, we would want to keep redirects that are likely to have any incoming links from outside of wikipedia but that's not the case either: there's no need to keep redirects for every swiftly corrected typo in a title. And if this redirect received any pageviews, it's most probably due to the fact that it contains commonly searched for terms, and the absence of a {{R from typo}} tag: the redirect shows up prominently in searches for "Pioneer daily" and this job is done just as well (and with less embarrassment for the project) by the correct redirect The Pioneer (daily). – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you know there are no links from outside the project? How is this "embarrassing" for the project? Surely people not getting to the article they are unambiguously looking for reflects very much more negatively on Wikipedia than the presence of a redirect with a typo? If typos were embarrassing then we would delete everything in Category:Redirects from misspellings rather than making them easy to find. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course I can't know with full certainty, but it's extremely unlikely that there would be any links on the internet pointing to the address the article had twelve years ago for less than two hours. Redirects that have been an article's title for much longer and until much sooner, are routinely deleted at RfD. Of course, redirects from typos are useful – for a reader who's made the typo when searching. What is embarrassing is for a reader to search using a correctly spelt query and to be shown a search result containing a misspelling of that query. The point is that we don't need a redirect from a typo if the same job can be done by a proper redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the point is that we do need redirects from typos that are doing the job. Regardless of whether other redirects are also doing the job or not. If someone gets to the article they are looking for (which in this case they undoubtedly are) does it really matter if they are getting there via a rediect a small number of editors dislike? We delete redirects that have been an article's title much longer only if the redirects are no longer being used or there is some other benefit to deletion (e.g. it's in the way of a different article, or hopelessly ambiguous) - none of which applies here. You have still failed to demonstrate how deletion will actually benefit anything (your opinion that it is "not needed" is not a benefit) let alone how those benefits outweigh the harm that deletion will cause. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the listing at Pioneer (newspaper), I'm not convinced that this title is unambiguous. We should only have typo redirects where there is no reasonable doubt what the reader is actually searching for - think of our redirects as a training dataset for machine learning of synonyms. The page history also points towards WP:G6 being applicable: the page was clearly given this title in error and therefore moved to a correct title within the same day, albeit back in 2006 and we haven't dealt with the leftover redirect. The combination of ambiguity and typo pushed me onto the delete side of this discussion. Deryck C. 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deryck. Not at all clear that we could call this unambiguous, and it's the result of a fleeting user error. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 29 October 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_October_21&oldid=1036307134"