Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2019.

Closure conversion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Closure conversion

Tropical Cyclone Vivienne(2005)[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another batch of tropical storm related redirects with a spacing error before the disambiguator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (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.

Template:Cv[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Template:Cv

Lexit[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 Brexit#Terminology and etymology. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, or in the body of any other articles with the exception of Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) and Issues in anarchism, neither of which would be an appropriate target. A soft redirect to wikt:Lexit might be a possibility. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Never heard that word in umpteen hours of reporting on Brexit. Made up by some editor? — JFG talk 06:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is very much a real word that was used during the referendum campaign by left wing Eurosceptics. A Google search proves as much. --RaviC (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the word was fairly widely used in 2016 and, as I said above, is mentioned in two articles. That doesn't however mean that redirecting it to an article that doesn't use or mention it is helpful: if a reader searches for this term then they're most likely to be looking for a definition and/or encyclopaedic information about it, neither of which is provided by the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Originally, there was a reasonable amount of content regarding Lexit in that article. Since it has ultimately been removed, a retarget is probably due. --RaviC (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very much a real word, and still in use among commenters on political threads in UK newspapers. Mentioned in 10 WP articles. A likely search term.
I propose retargetting to Brexit#Terminology and etymology, and adding a brief definition there with a couple of citations, e.g. this (The Guardian, 2015), this (BBC, 2018), this (The Guardian, 2018), this (The Independent, 2018) and this (The Guardian, 2019). (There are mentions in The Telegraph and The Times also, but behind paywalls.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good solution, but it should be noted that there are also uses of "Lexit" to refer to EU exits other than the UK's (it's hard to remember now but before there was Brexit there was Grexit; Nexit and Irexit also exist). See Socialism Today on Greece, Yanis Varoufakis on a sentiment in the wider European left. So I think a section in Withdrawal from the European Union would be a more appropriate target than the UK-specific article, if one could be written (though Grexit actually points to an article about a Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone, which is another process again). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we're getting somewhere, but could maybe use some further discussion to narrow down the options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Narky Blert above. It's not widely used, but it is a real word in this political debate, and should redirect somewhere. Robofish (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2019 (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.
  • Narky Blert, wanted to make sure you saw this close. I think you should follow through on your suggestion, as the status quo is going to continue to be unhelpful to readers. B dash, I recommend giving some sort of closing statement if you're going to make closes like this without follow-through on such suggestions. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Thanks for the heads-up. My idea; my duty to implement it; done. Yes, it would have been nice if the closer had alerted me. Narky Blert (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump riots[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) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems no riots occur in any protests against Trump, may be misleading B dash (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per the lede, Some protesters have been criminally charged with rioting. The article uses the word "riot" seven times (references excluded). -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Police authorities have labelled some protests as "riots," such as in Portland. Marquis de Faux (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. WP:RNEUTRAL applies here. funplussmart (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Trump-related events with "riot" in their title: 2016 Albuquerque riot, 2016 Oakland riots, and 2016 Portland, Oregon riots. None are explicitly mentioned or linked to from the target article, though Protests against Donald Trump#Post election may describe the latter two (both are cities in which you'd expect many protests against Trump). --BDD (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2019 (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.

Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)[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 Template:Lepidoptera. per Steel 1943; please bring back to RfD you strongly object. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strange cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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.

Nunquam[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 The Revolt of Aphrodite. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear why this redirects here, rather than, say, The Revolt of Aphrodite. --woodensuperman 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make another redirect for Nunquam (novel).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) previously User:FFS[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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.

Eurasian Economic UnionEAEU[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) 03:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect - It consists of the phrase 'Eurasian Economic Union' followed directly by the abbreviation 'EAEU' with no spaces in between. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very few, if any, readers are ever going to type something like this into the search box. Geolodus (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2019 (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.

Hamburder[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) 03:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the target article explains, or even mentions, the term. PamD 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P45 misspelled hamburger as hamberder on twitter when he hosted the Clemson football team.[1] It became a meme, similar to covfefe.[2] 53zodiac (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Hamburger as a {{R from misspelling}}. Given that the redirect is a misspelling of a misspelling, it would make sense to point it to the original meaning over the misspelled meaning. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only Trump would make this mistake. The error made it to an SNL sketch. Anyone searching this specifically will be well served at the target. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the mistake that Trump made though. That mistake was Hamberder. The redirect being discussed is a different spelling: Hamburder. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it needs to be mentioned in the social media article for it to have a meaningful redirect, otherwise it could be a portmanteau of hamburger and murder, which is something completely different. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited article Donald Trump on social media#Satire, archives, and reactions to include reference to SNL "hamburder" gameshow 53zodiac (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNL spelled it the same way Trump did, which was "Hamberders", not "Hamburders". -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A misspelling of a misspelling is simply nitpicking. News websites have used both hamberder and hamburder in articles about P45, and most people who search for "hamburder" on wikipedia would expect to find some info on Trump.[3] [4] [5] Keep. 53zodiac (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix, or delete per nom. This meme got nowhere near as much covfefecoverage as covfefe did. Iffy★Chat -- 13:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trump's hamburders gaffe was notable enough to receive coverage on SNL. 53zodiac (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely typo. Peter James (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this even nominated for deletion in the first place, rather than simply requesting clarification of the term on its talkpage? After three relistings there is still no clear consensus. Keep the redirect as it is, and stop wasting my time and everyone else's. 53zodiac (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RTYPO multiple typos, as Hamberder already exists. I have to remove "P45" as a nickname though. [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a specific misspelling is attributed to a single person, then a misspelling of that misspelling is completely worthless. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2019 (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.

Lambda Omega sorority Norroena[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. Simply put, I think the arguments for delete are stronger. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created for Research for the Lambda Omega sorority which started as Norroena and which eventually folded into Theta Upsilon. Article on Lambda Omega has been created since which goes into this. Naraht (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lambda Omega per nom. It's explained at both articles but going immediately to Theta Upsilon would be a bit of a surprise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term under the current title: (sorority name) + "sorority" + (former club name). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per King of. There is no usage of this specific phrase outside of Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a really unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:WEAK[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. No consensus for any target. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to retarget this unused shortcut, and created a new one for the current target, but those changes were reverted, apparently for the sole reason that they were not discussed first [7] so here we are. Neither essay is high-impact, but, despite what is implied in the message I received, nothing was harmed because the shortcut had never been used, and I simply think it makes more sense redirected to the WP:STRONG page, and I created WP:WEAKPA as a new, more specific shortcut for the other essay. (note that the previous RFD on this redirect predates the creation of either essay and is therefore not relevant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as originally proposed: it's hardly an established shortcut when it's unused, and the proposed changes would appear to be both an improvement and sensible. ——SerialNumber54129 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original configuraiton aids searches (#3), is useful (#5), and is closely related to the word form of the essay (#6). The redirect has been in place to its original essay since July 2017, and points to an essay that has been around just as long. That original essay has been edited by 18 unique editors (I am the original author) and is included on Template:Civility, showing that it has support in the community. Over 800 pages link to the original essay and until yesterday WP:WEAK was its only shortcut. The new proposed target hasn't even been around three months, only has one author, and has links to 14 pages (and it appears that some of those are older than the three months) Such a change is disruptive to Wikipedia and should be avoided. Plus, as this page states: "Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect."--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's look at those arguments one by one:
  • I can't see how it aids searches since it is unused, there is no reason to belive the new shortcut I made is any less helpful, and in fact more clearly refers to that specifc essay.
  • How many people have edited each essay does not seem the least bit relevant, neither is the relative age of the two essays as all we are talking about here is where the redirect should point.
  • There is nothing disruptive about changing a redirect that isn't linked anywhere, which is what is proposed here, not deletion.
I think that about covers it...Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response very simple, actually...
  • It aids in searches for editors who remember the shortcut keyword WEAK which is already established. Just because the shortcut link itself is not embedded in other content does not mean that it isn't used or useful--best practice is to avoid the use of redirects if at all possible when editing. Plus the daily pageviews on the essay's talk page show that it gains a good amount of traffic. Plus, the shortcut averages about 10 pageviews per month according to statistics. Certainly not a huge volume, but definitely not "unused" by any stretch.
  • The number of people involved in the essay is extraordinarily relevant. Sure, I was the original author but other editors have found it valuable enough to contribute to the essay--to mold it and shape it into something more driven by consensus; the new essay is nothing more than the contributions of one editor (plus now a grammatical error change from a second). It's not in the Template:Wikipedia essays so it's not really gaining any ground.
  • It's disruptive because the established essay has the history, and users of that essay would have to remember a different search term. For that reason, we don't move shortcuts without first having a discussion. The "apartment" (so to speak) is already occupied.
  • Another point--The new essay is strikingly similar to the shortcuts WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON that redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This essay section contains the exact same concept as the proposed target essay and therefore seems redundant and should probably be deleted or merged. The same ideas are already expressed in another place with established shortcuts. There's no need to change the shortcuts because one editor wrote the same thing in a separate essay. That, too, can be disruptive. I think it may be best to consider deletion of the new proposed destination, or possibly merging the content to the larger and more widely accepted essay.
  • Still another point: checking the history of the proposed essay, we can see that the original author did not think much of this essay during its creation. Comments like "may write more later but this is basically it" and "shortcut to this highly important essay" show a sense of apathy toward its creation. The "weak" references weren't even added until yesterday (after the original author let the essay sit untouched for several months). It doesn't look like there's much enthusiasm at all for this work from its lone author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, I do not get a sense of any "bad faith" here -- I believe that the proposed changes are made in good faith, I just believe that they should not be executed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI: you come across as being very condescending, starting with your talk page message to me, right up to this last remark. I'm not usually a fan of pissing contests but for the record I've been an admin for nearly a decade and on the functionaries team since 2010, not some new user who just doesn't know what's going on as you seem to keep implying. So, let's not make this personal, because it isn't, it's a discussion about a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I apologize. I don't think I could be more polite. I made no presumption about any history of your editing, but I must point out that there is no WP:SENIORITY on Wikipedia and the best argument should be used regardless of its source. The points I have presented still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no seniority; but experience is a tangible thing. As Beeblebrox is trying to tell you  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of these personal comments about experience are variations of WP:ADHOM (arguments to the person), specifically listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest WP:BLUDGEON is also required reading. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (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/2019_April_19&oldid=1072177063"