Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2018.

Omaha Race Riot[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) feminist (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XY. There have been multiple. The Greek Town riot was an anti-Greek race riot. And there are more that are documented in RS: the 1910 Jack Johnson boxing riots, the 1969 Vivian Strong riots, and many other smaller ones. Note also the lynching of Joe Coe.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google results show that the 1919 riot is the overwhelming primary topic for the term "Omaha Race Riot" as an exact phrase (searching "Omaha Race Riot" -Wikipedia only one of the first 40 hits is about a different event). A hatnote to List of riots and civil unrest in Omaha, Nebraska should be added though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 1919 riot is clearly the topic most people refer to when they use the phrase "Omaha race riot". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. XY concerns "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets", wheres this one refers predominantly to a single topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:35, 11 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.

0.9[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#0.9

Portal:Agnosticism[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) 19:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted because the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agnosticism explicitly said "speedy delete ... as a duplicate of Agnosticism that is not a plausible redirect". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. However, it's the opinion of me, Legacypac (MfD nom) and Kusma (closing admin) that this ain't one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the close of the MFD and the stupidity of redirecting a pointless deleted portal. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe redirects from the portal namespace to the article namespace are harmful, as the blueness of the link seems to indicate there is a portal while there isn't. The existence of a large number of users able to find Portal:Agnosticism but not Agnosticism (those are the people who would use this redirect) has not been demonstrated either. —Kusma (t·c) 08:31, 8 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.

Tarun Kumar(cricketer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#Tarun Kumar(cricketer)

Tennis at the Summer Olympics (tennis)[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) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously unnecessary disambiguation. Sam Sailor 15:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is not a reason to delete a redirect, especially one that has received 78 hits in the month it has existed. I don't know where these are coming from, but it's obviously very well used and the target is undoubtedly the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} as we normally use this category, which was why I said it is an obviously unnecessary disambiguation. I would highly recommend against redirects in the format [Foo] text string (foo) redirecting to [Foo] text string. Can you give examples of any such redirects following previous discussions? As for the 78 page views, I'll take a wild guess and assume that the 77 were NPPrs that were unsure of how to handle this. Sam Sailor 20:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a redirect that contains disambiguation that is not necessary - what else could it be? As for new page patrollers, 77 is an implausibly high number for any redirect - I've never seen one get more than 10 in a day or for the traffic from them last more than 2-3 days (and I've looked at traffic stats for literally thousands of redirects over the years). Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've figured out where the hits are coming from. {{Infobox tennis tournament year}} adds "(tennis)" to the main event by default (as in US Open (tennis) instead of US Open). As a result, it creates this bizarre formatting when the infobox was added to Olympics articles. I have since added a parameter to the affected articles to bypass this redirect (example diff). The hits should disappear now that this has been fixed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is already obvious that the redirect is about tennis before the parenthetical, it doesn't make sense why a disambiguator would be employed to state that again. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This redirect, for whatever reason, has received a lot of hits so far in its short life. I can't think of a good reason to delete it. On the other hand I can't for the life of me understand why this has had so many hits. As @Tavix: pointed out one has to type tennis to even get to the second "tennis" unless they were typing in something like "the summer olympics tennis" into the searchbar. In that case it is probably this redirect that would come up. JZCL 20:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I can't think of a good reason to delete it" then you should recommend keeping it per WP:CHEAP. No page on Wikpedia should be deleted without a positive reason for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inasmuch as I can't see a good reason to delete, I don't really see a good reason to keep it either, other than the high number of hits. But if Tavix is right about where the hits were coming from then the hits here probably will dwindle very low. That said, redirects are cheap, so I would err towards weak keep for now. JZCL 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for are disambiguations that are currently unnecessary, not implausible ones that will never be necessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: The page views show that this is useful now, so by your logic you should be recommending keep. If Tavix is right then it wont be necessary in future, but we'll need a few months of stats after this RfD closes to see if it is or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That does not follow my logic: it is both implausible and unnecessary (separately). Even if Tavix is wrong, this is still a bad redirect with miniscule pageviews. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      75 page views in a year indicates a very well used redirect, 75 in a month is not miniscule even for an article! These same page views show that the redirect is demonstrably not implausible. It's your arguments that are implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Better yet, stop relying on arbitrary numbers to make your arguments. Not only are page views extremely subjective, they are not useful to determine whether or not a redirect should be deleted. Instead of the childish "my arguments aren't implausible, yours are!", can we please focus on the actual redirect and not the underlying arbitrary figures. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tavix: What is "arbitrary" about the numbers? In what way are page views "subjective"? We have qualitiative evidence that real humans (and almost certainly many of them) are using a redirect to get to the only plausible target - how can this be anything other than evidence that the redirect is useful? Even if you dispute this empirical evidence, it is not plausible in the slightest to claim that 75 page views in a month is "miniscule". Despite repeatedly asking for your evidence every time you bring out this "page views are irelevant" argument you have yet to present anything that backs up your claims. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No, page views are not a useful metric to conclude that someone is using a redirect to find what they were looking for. They cannot tell you how a redirect is being used, that is if someone is using a redirect for navigational purposes, maintenance purposes, or simply clicking around with no intent. Also, out of the group that may be searching using the redirect, page views do not tell you that they are satisfied where they end up. As I described above, the page views were likely (but we cannot know for certain) mainly coming from a bug in an infobox that has since been fixed, so past page views are not an indication of the redirect's use moving forward. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      So what else could somebody using this be looking for? It is extraordinarily implausible that anyone using this list will not be satisfied with where they end up. Your last sentence is a good reason why we should keep this and look again in a few months to see if it is still useful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This might be a weird but sensible disambiguation like Skiing at the Olympics (alpine), Skiing at the Olympics (nordic) or Hockey at the Olympics (field), Hockey at the Olympics (ice) but it's more like Hockey at the Olympics (hockey) and Skiing at the Olympics (skiing) so it is not useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a likely search term, but a reasonably plausible one (all but the most meticulous of typists make "Department of Redundancy Department"-type errors from time to time) and an utterly harmless redirect (the reader is clearly being taken to the correct article and there's no risk of this causing confusion). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i think everyone will find the target article without this redirect. Number of hits does not always reflect necessity. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect has no value or reason to exist. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no history and no real value. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 20 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.

Cheese powder[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) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm specifically searching for "cheese powder", the main article isn't useful. feminist (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Powdered cheese to this discussion as the two should point to the same place (if anywhere). Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. It's clear from searching that there is a notable topic to be had - either as a standalone article or possibly a section at processed cheese - but it isn't something that I can find has been written about yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned once at the Processed cheese article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was suggesting a possible location to add content not recommending a retarget there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or discussed in any depth in other article, so the redirect is unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 11 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.

Arhamkot (city)[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) 19:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arhamkot does not seem to be a real place; could not find any reliable evidence for its existence anyway. See also deletion rationales of Arhamkot and State of Arhamkot. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Arhamkot does indeed appear to be a hoax. 0 results on Google Scholar, and the only results on Google books don't actually seem to mention the word so I don't understand why they're there. (I suppose it might be Google cobbling together odd bits of misinformation elsewhere across its site, which includes a great number of blog posts alluding to this mysterious place.) See for instance this. Now it's clearly non-WP:RS yet mysterious that this is all over the internet in odd places... JZCL 20:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I initially wrote until I found this. Is it possible this guy has built up his own hype over the internet, including the entries on Wikipedia? Does @Nicola Paek: have any particular reasons for all of these pages? JZCL 20:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not planning to bring this up because the connection with Nicola Paek was dismissed as stale, but your latest link is most likely the man behind Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MUHAMMAD SAFIULLAH. I had already noticed that this user created blogs to feign sourcing, although sometimes it was quite obvious: one time something was posted and that same day it was used to source a Wikipedia article. That cannot be a coincidence. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:23, 11 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.

SLUMBERJACK[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) 17:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target already redirects to Mad Decent, plus page titles should be in plain text per Talk:Deadmau5#Requested move 17 August 2018. 99.203.31.232 (talk) 02:35, 7 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.

Defund[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 Funding#Withdrawal of funding which is where consensus has been developing since that section was added (thanks, JZCL!). Most of the delete comments seem to be objectionable specifically to the current target (eg: the current target is too specific), so retargeting to a broader article more or less satisfies those concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way too specific an article for such a broad title. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer - I think that more discussion about whether or not to retarget should take place before deleting these redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 11 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.

Na na na na na na na na[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😆😂🤣 Hilarious, but I'm not sure that this is particularly helpful. . .  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 7 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_7&oldid=1036307138"