Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2018.

Música pop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 11#Música pop

Throbbing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 11#Throbbing

Blow off[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. 14:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Beasting123 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not useless. This term is very common and should redirect someplace which is helpful to the reader. Tinton5 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nomination reason is poor but this redirect is worth discussing. See #Throbbing, a discussion above about a related redirect for a better statement about why such redirects may be problematic. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Disambig along with "blowoff" and "blow-off" as there are various venting senses, blowoff valve, Blow-off panel, a dance event organised by Richard Morel, something to do with Cirrus spissatus clouds, and probably other useful targets. The link to Wiktionary should be maintained if disambiguation is chosen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. Neither of those conditions apply. Additionally, it was just created ~10 hours ago. Thus, it should not be retained solely as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a soft redirect to Wiktionary is what best serves readers then it should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary, regardless of anything else. Creation time is not relevant in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start a discussion to change the guideline if you like; I am merely relaying it. That aside: as arguments are commonly made to keep a redirect that has existed for a long time, how long one has existed is a relevant factor in determining its suitability. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said that creation time is not relevant to this discussion, as you are correct that length of existence is relevant to some redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not useless by any means, and I don't think a disambiguation page is viable per WP:PTM. @Godsy: WP:SOFTSISTER seems to me to have several flaws: (1) it contradicts the documentation of Template:Wiktionary redirect (which has in my view a more sensible set of criteria, with some overlap but not total overlap); (2) it is not really entirely coherent ("We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia" is a nonsequitur that states the obvious); and (3) it arguably goes beyond its remit as a style guideline by trying to delimit what pages should and should not be created. I'm usually sympathetic to the argument that we ought to try to change guidelines with which we disagree rather than ignoring them, but this seems like a straightforward example of "a rule [that] prevents [one] from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", at least insofar as we'd be tying ourselves in knots trying to abide by it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to "do not place it on every possible word" and "see [the guideline] for further guidance," I do not believe that the template documentation and guideline conflict. Actually, the template documentation could be perceived as adding further criteria that a redirect should meet for its use to be appropriate (i.e. further restricting use of the template). That aside, WP:IAR is for immediate situations where a discussion is not possible. After an IAR action, a discussion should be started to seek community consensus if the situation is likely to arise again on a regular basis. Hence, continually ignoring a guideline here at RFD is indefensible per IAR. One might have to abandon stark inclusionism to abide by SOFTSISTER but I do not consider that to be tying oneself in a knot (rather, abandoning stark inclusionism or deletionism is freeing oneself from a knot).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The template documentation and the guideline certainly conflict. Most pertinent to the discussion here is the fact that the former suggests creating a soft redirect when "Readers search for [the title] on Wikipedia", whereas WP:SOFTSISTER makes no such suggestion, but rather (as you've noted above) limits its applicability to titles that are "commonly wikified words" or "repeatedly recreated".
On the IAR question, your interpretation is entirely valid but it's clearly not part of our pithiest policy. Neither the supplement WP:WIARM, nor the essay WP:UIAR, nor any other page, as far as I know, limits the relevance of the policy to "immediate situations where a discussion is not possible", nor do they weigh in on what is or is not defensible. Nonetheless, I broadly agree with you on this, as I've made plain in my final sentence immediately above. I tend to stay away, for example, from RfDs that centre around WP:FORRED because, although I disagree with that page, it's clearly established and supported by a consensus. I'm not sure I can say the same about SOFTSISTER: it strikes me as not only poorly formulated (for the three reasons outlined above), but also as lacking that sort of widespread acceptance. I certainly can't remember any instances of it being invoked at RfD prior to the last few days, and I suspect if I looked through my contributions I could find at least a few RfD closures that run counter to it (most recently Manlet, off the top of my head). So the upshot is that I'll try to find the time to look into amending the guideline, but in the meantime will continue to !vote for soft redirects when I see fit, in the knowledge that the closer is free to attach as much or little weight to my arguments as they feel is appropriate.
As far as being a "stark inclusionist" is concerned – the only Wikipedian "ism" I endorse is don't-give-a-fuckism. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arms & Hearts: I was not calling you a stark inclusionist (though it reads like I was alluding that) but trying to make a general point. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Blowoff as pertaining mainly to the Blowoff valve but also the group mentioned, also mentions in Clown, and can pick up the Wiktionary for "blow off". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:List of userboxes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pointless. Beasting123 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blaming the jews[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 Antisemitic canard. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was created in 2006 but I don't think any articles use this redirect Seraphim System (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Comment: Although no non-articles use this redirect, it seems to have quite a number of page views. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page views suggest this is a common search term and/or it's linked from somewhere outside Wikipedia, so there is significant benefit to this title not being a redlink. The current target is relevant, and I can't immediately find a more appropriate one, so keeping it as is will offer the greatest benefit to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Always keep old redirects if they are not harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget - This appears to be more specifically linked to what an antisemitic conspiracy theorist would say than the general topic. I'd rather that we go to 'Antisemitic canard', which lists accusations and their debunking in depth. Side note: I'm genuinely surprised that this redirect exists but neither does 'antisemitic conspiracies' nor 'antisemitic conspiracy', say. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Antisemitic canard per CoffeeWithMarkets. Most if not all of the examples listed in that article are examples of "Blaming the Jews". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to canard as above. This is the more precise topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested for the long term redirect. RaviC (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_1&oldid=1036307450"