Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 24, 2019.

Remaining redirects with "langauge"[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. I was holding off here since I closed the previous discussion and thus might be seen as WP:INVOLVED. If I were voting, I could see the merits of both sides; I'm not on any sort of crusade against these. But with a clear outcome and many other RfD-regular admins voting here, I think this falls to me. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 11#Redirects with "langauge". That RfD contains the full rationale and an extended discussion, but in short: these redirects contain a typo of the common word "language", their usefulness for the readers who make this typo for each of those six search terms is far outweighed by their harm in blocking the search results for readers who make the typo in hundreds of related search terms. With the exception of Langauge, these are all the redirects remaining with this typo (they were not part of the previous nomination: they had slipped through the cracks as I didn't use a completely thorough method for tracking them down). Of these redirects, the first and the last were created in error, the rest were intentionally created with the typo. There's no history worth preserving and no incoming links from articles remaining . – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mixed I don't understand how that RfD came to the conclusion it did - as there were far too many redirects to evaluate, this is not the case here and some of these are demonstrably useful and others are not (further suggesting that redirects listed last time were also a mixed bag), so: Strong keep Pakistani langauge and The English Langauge which both get 70-90 hits each year and English (langauge) which is nearly as well used (around 60 hits a year). weak delete the rest as not significantly used. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussion close to keep consistency. Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I maintain that "langauge" is a plausible typo, thus these are useful {{R from typo}}s. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete through prior consensus. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale that they are positively harmful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harmful to keep, and while the discussion linked for consensus is quite interesting, I support deleting for consistency. ~riley (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was opposed to the previous deletions, and nothing in this discussion has convinced me that "langauge" should not be covered by {{R from typo}} as a common misspelling. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a plausible typo yes, but the issue here is that the typo is so likely that you end up crowding out more relevant search results in the internal search engine when people make this typo for other languages. Unless we commit to including "_______ langauge" redirects for every language, we shouldn't have them for any. signed, Rosguill talk 08:07, 25 December 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.

WPJ:Music[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CNR and the 2014 discussion deprecating the creation of new pseudo-namespaces. If there's ever a time where WP:PANDORA is a useful deletion argument, the creation of new pseudo-namespaces ought to be one. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WaitDelete until the discussion is over, then decide. It's useful as a test and example until then. Merry Christmas! // J947 (c), at 23:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m seeing a lot of “Oppose” there... Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) WP:SNOWNOT is a useful read here. Merry Christmas! // J947 (c), at 00:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got the order backwards. Existing consensus already said not to do this for over 5 years, and CNRs are frequent deletion rationales at RFD under WP:RDEL#6. Editors should wait until a discussion shows we should repeal RDEL6 before making them, rather than make everyone wait for an obviously doomed proposal to finish. Only one person has suggested more CNRs and many people have explicitly opposed that suggestion; on the off chance the tides turn and we modify RDEL6 we can easily recreate these redirects. If you seriously cannot conceive of how a redirect would work without having a blue link, use piped links like this FakeNameSpace:Foo bar baz. There's no need to create redirects for the sole purpose of making examples not red links. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah on second thoughts it's unnecessary. I have changed my !vote accordingly. Merry Christmas! // J947 (c), at 01:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the discussion at VPR somehow winds up supporting cross-namespace redirects, they can be recreated. Until that happens, they shouldn't exist. An "example" is unnecessary, the intent would be equally obvious from the redlinks. Anomie⚔ 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the consensus to stop having new CNRs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly premature. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 25 December 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.

Yaviah[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Yaviah

Drug bust[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. A good amount of support for both deletion or some sort of retarget, but consensus definitely leaned towards the former. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very common term; there's probably an appropriate article on law enforcement and drugs. If not, then just adding this term and a source at an appropriate place in the current target should do the trick. I don't think it will help readers to red-link this term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One possibility might be War on drugs#Arrests and incarceration, especially given that "drug bust" is primarily an American term. If we think it's broader, then perhaps Prohibition of drugs#Methods of law enforcement. I'm a bit surprised that we seem to be lacking coverage of drug busts in particular, given how high-profile the big ones are in the media, and how lucrative they are for law enforcement agencies (in the US, anyway) – while they don't get to sell the drugs of course, the civil asset forfeiture process allows them to seize and liquidate other property from suspects, even before any trial has established guilt. Regardless, it seems that we have some potential targets for the phrase, but they all lack the appropriate contextual material at this point, even if we didn't get into that level of detail. PS: I would think that other potential meanings of "drug bust" [1], [2], [3] don't need encyclopedic coverage. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sting operation#Examples with an "R to section" Rcat added, per SMcCandlish above. Comment I'd be supportive of another, better redirect target. Ping me. Otherwise, I would also be amenable to deleting to encourage article creation or weak keeping without prejudice to a bold retargeting later. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I do not support that suggested retargetting, as (1) drug busts are not mentioned there and (2) drug busts and sting operations are overlapping sets - not all drug busts are sting operations and not all sting operations are drug busts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's too tenuous a connection. I thought War on drugs#Arrests and incarceration or Prohibition of drugs#Methods of law enforcement might be better (see above), particularly since they're about enforcement (the current target is about illicit use/sales, not being busted for use/sales). But none of the four (so far) articles actually use this term. I'm hoping someone will just think of the best place to use it, with a source, and get on that. In my case, the subject cranks up my blood pressure, and I'm closely tied to certain individuals involved in one aspect or another of the WoD, so I feel a bit CoI/PoV on it. Even in my comment above I had trouble not editorializing about CAF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the currently proposed suggestions, I think redirecting to Prohibition of drugs#Methods of law enforcement is the best. signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Thryduulf and SMcCandlish, it was just one idea. I agree it's not that great, but I'm not sure the proposed targets SMcCandlish added are much better. Maybe the best option, for now, is to "delete" per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation? I'm just not convinced any of the targets proposed are ideal or any better than the current target. To add to my own comment, I see that SMcCandlish agrees none of the proposed targets are ideal. I had a look at Wiktionary, per Thryduulf recommending innovative soft retargets to Wiktionary in unrelated recent RfDs, so as an alternative to deletion, we could do a "soft redirect" to wikt:bust, possibly to a section "Etymology 2" where it is mentioned. This would be until such time as someone wants to create an article. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prohibition of drugs#Methods of law enforcement as the best alternative. I don't support deletion or soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think WP:REDLINKing it is the best option. As SMcCandlish points out, this is a topic we should have coverage on. Ideally that coverage should be at Drug bust rather than scattered across sections of multiple overview articles. However because the information is scattered across the encyclopedia, there are a number of potential targets, none of which are great. For that reason, readers looking for information on this term would probably be served better by search results. The redlink will also encourage article creation which is ultimately the best solution. I understand why retargeting is attractive, but in this instance I think a red link is the best course. Wug·a·po·des​ 10:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Mildly involved relist to not have this be the only open discussion on the RfD page for the 16th. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above and per Wugapodes's WP:REDLINK rationale. None of the proposed redirect targets are adequate here or much better than the current target, which is sub-optimal. This should be a deletion, to encourage article creation, and without prejudice to recreation in the future when and only if an ideal redirect target emerges. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with that. On a re-review of this, I'm not really satisfied with any of the redir targets either. We either need appropriate content added to one of those article to make for a good target, or we need a proper stand-alone article (though probably not at the title "drug bust").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:REDLINK.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:54, 27 December 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.

Nats Cumco[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Started out as a stub, then got redirected, but the redirect target now has no mention of it, and neither has any other article on wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 24 December 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.

Loudoun, Tennesse[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has two spelling errors, making it much less plausible than if there only were one. I can't find any instances where "Loudoun" refers to the town, and one will most likely be able to complete a search than need a redirect with the last 'e' missing. ComplexRational (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is - common misspelling (and British variation). The city is named for Fort Loudoun, which uses the British variation. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bneu, did you intend for this redirect to have just one "e" at the end of Tennessee? If not, just move the redirect to Loudoun, Tennessee. BrineStans (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bneu2013, as well as the fact that Tennesse redirects to Tennessee, enforcing that as a plausible misspelling. If Loudoun, Tennessee needs to be created, someone else can do that since that does not require this redirect be deleted for that to happen. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; no need to delete. I have created Loudoun, Tennessee and I note that Loudoun County, Tennessee was created back in 2013, with the admin who created it saying that it is a very plausible misspelling that would benefit from a redirect. Happy New Year! // J947 (c) 21:20, 31 December 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.

Doikk Nats[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about a town in the Space Wars universe, and the redirects stand for the name of one of the members of the music band that plays in one of the bars in that town. This member was mentioned in this former article, but that article got merged in 2018 and the detailed content about the band didn't make it past. No relevant content anywhere at the moment (notwithstanding an entry in the gargantuan List of Star Wars cast members). Mos Eisley has a number of similar incoming redirects, but I'll leave dealing with them to somebody else. – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 24 December 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.

Full-time work[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I just created these redirects, but then I discovered the article Full-time equivalent. I'm not sure where these redirects should target, and I'm also not sure if a disambiguation page is necessary. (If no one comments, I guess my default stance is "keep and add a hatnote at target".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Also of note: Full-time exists and is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, clear primary topic over the wonky little-known meaning in government bean-counting. BD2412 T 17:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is Per BD2412, it seems to most typically refer to a full-time job.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. a hatnote to Full-time equivalent won't hurt--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 28 December 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.

Marja's[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. MBisanz talk 13:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page from the possessive case. Not needed; it can never be validly linked; delete. Narky Blert (talk) 12:49, 24 December 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.

[email protected][edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#[email protected]

Majoritarian socialism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Majoritarian socialism

Battle of Vega Real[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Battle of Vega Real

Sentinel High Schoool[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. MBisanz talk 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in name, I don't see any value in keeping this redirect. Nothing links to it (logo and a school article had linked to this but have been updated) except a bot archive page and an IP talk page for vandalism. Steven (Editor) (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleeete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was the article's title when it was created in 2009, and it remained there for nearly a year. The redirect still gets occasional use, spiking earlier this year with an average of 15 views per month in the first quarter. - Eureka Lott 19:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a stub and in need of attention but referenced and within scope. ClemRutter (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: your comment appears to apply to the target article and not to the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is being proposed for deletion here, not the target article. Glades12 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep as a potential typo and could have incoming links from outside of Wiikiipeediiaa. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 03:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete. Anyone who types as far as 'Sentinel High Schoo' in the search box will find what they want. No reason to keep an unhelpful misspelling, no matter how longstanding.Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, considering that 1) This reditect is not in the "File:" namespace, the only namespace where we should be concerned about external links, 2) Schoool does not exist and never has, so us having this one exception for a misspelling and why that is important is unclear and unnecessary, and 3) unless there is exceptional proof that this misspelling is in a high level of use in external sources outside of Wikipedia (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors) such as news articles, etc. that are referring to the target subject without referencing Wikipedia, the existence of this redirect is WP:COSTLY, regardless how long the target article was sitting at it. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really a useful redirect. BD2412 T 17:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I wouldn't be sad to see this go, but there's good practical reasons to keep. External links are one, but my concern is duplicate articles. It's a hard typo to spot which is maybe why the article was created there in the first place, and why it took a year to move it. If there are external links, deleting the page would break them which is bad, but worse still is that people may actually create an article there thinking we don't have one. We'd then need to delete or merge that one, ultimately creating more work. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect has low user traffic. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary although honestly it would have been a better use of editor time to not open this discussion and let sleeeping dogs lie. signed, Rosguill talk 07:57, 25 December 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.

H4TH[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. MBisanz talk 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a known or used shortcut for this album (plus there's also an EP with the same title), so an unlikely search term. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not likely to be known, understood, or used as a search term. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, since there is no higher use for either term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sure, they’re cheap, but they still need to be plausible. I did a Google search and it didn’t look like a single hit in the first few pages had anything to do with this music album. Just about all hits were for the charity “Help for the Homeless”. Same results in some social media searching. I don’t see any evidence that this is a common abbreviation for the album. CHEAP by itself isn’t a good enough reason to keep this. Sergecross73 msg me 05:22, 29 December 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.

Full-time and part-time work[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. MBisanz talk 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is entirely about part-time work, ergo this redirect has no relevance and should be deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the phrase "Full-time" in terms of work refers to a subject other than the redirect's target, and thus WP:XY applies. (Also, participants in this discussion may be interested in participating in the RfD for "Full-time work".) Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 24 December 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_December_24&oldid=933898518"