Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2019.

Opera Touch![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Opera Touch!

List of The West Wing writers[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 Restore article/Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a list of writers. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 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.

T'Rails[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. Now mentioned in the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, an internet search for the redirect term does not return any results related to the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 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.

В. В. Kurasov[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 prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More redirects with inappropriately used Cyrillic letters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • LaundryPizza03, can you clarify what you mean by "inappropriately used"? Is there a rule that mixtures of Cyrillic and Roman are always inappropriate? -Thibbs (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can elaborate:
    • Аɪ (IPA): Cyrillic characters are not used in IPA. It should be a Latin lowercase ⟨a⟩.
    • М577: M113 was developed by the United States military and is not particularly associated with any language using the Cyrillic alphabet.
    • The other redirects (В. В. Kurasov, ВD, СGA, С.M.S.A.A., МHC Spartak) mix Latin and Cyrillic letters in a manner that make them implausible search terms.
    • There is extensive precedent to delete implausible mixed-script redirects. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_6#Аugust_2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • LaundryPizza03 and the Man in Question - I was invited here to comment on one specific usage, namely "ВD", so I restrict my comments to that term.
      I agree with you that the term "ВD" "mix[es] Latin and Cyrillic letters", but I don't agree that it does so "in a manner that make[s it an] implausible search term[]". Both "ВД" and "ВD" are used as initialisms (acronyms) for the Russian magazine Velikiy Drakon. In Russian the title is "Великий Dракон". You can see the mixed Cyrillic and Latin term "ВD" used several places in the Russian article. It also appears in several of the magazine's pages as a shorthand for the magazine. Considering that the Russian readers who use Wikipedia are plausibly likely to use the same initialism that the magazine itself used and that Russian Wikipedia in fact uses the mixed Cyrilic-Latin term on the ru.wiki article, wouldn't it make sense to use the common term as a redirect in this case? -Thibbs (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As LaundryPizza said, the а in аɪ (IPA) is in Cyrillic. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We can all agree, I expect, that these are wrong: there's no good reason to mix Cyrillic and Latin in these particular strings, and I can't envision a situation in which one should mix Cyrillic and Latin, aside from stylistic stuff that's as silly as heavy metal umlauts. (If you speak Russian and you're searching the English Wikipedia, will you really expect us to retain a Russian initialism? If you search here in Russian, why would you use anything but the full name?) And the only good reason to keep something that's outright wrong is if it's plausible, e.g. we keep Geroge Bush because it's a common typo. How could someone possibly combine Cyrillic and Latin by accident in this manner? Keyboards come with one script or another, but they don't come with both; the only way you can type С.M.S.A.A. with a Latin keyboard is copy/pasting the С from somewhere or typing an extended-character code, and you'll have to go through at least times that effort to type M S A on a Cyrillic keyboard. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend, I'm envisioning a scenario where someone copy&pastes the term from a discussion at the Velikiy Drakon website in order to read Wikipedia's article. It's very easy to imagine it happening. For example, make a search for the mixed term "ВD" here: http://www.greatdragon.ru/news/2967-who-is-vy-velikiy-drakon-istoriya-zhurnala.html#comment . Someone copy-and-pasting the term on Wikipedia would be left with the incorrect impression that Wikipedia did not cover the topic. And if you don't think that the redirect is never used just take a look at the pageviews analysis. It's obviously used on Wikipedia as a search term. -Thibbs (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "ВD" - The term is used by the magazine Velikiy Drakon (i.e. the target of the redirect) and is used by Russian readers. Despite arguments above that it is difficult (for some) to create a two-letter mixed-character expression, copy&paste is a commonly-used tool online on all keyboards and the redirect is in fact used on Wikipedia as demonstrated by the pageviews analysis. The term is used numerous times in the ru.wikipedia version of the article which suggests that readers are familiar with the term and quite plausibly use it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any difference between a mixed Cyrillic-Latin expression like "Toys Я Us" and the mixed Cyrillic-Latin expression "ВD"? I worry that familiarity with a well-known term like "Toys Я Us" is the sole difference between retaining redirects like that "Toys Я Us" and removing unfamiliar terms like "ВD" which is otherwise quite comparable. And I'll put a name to the concern: Systemic bias. -Thibbs (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC) (Shifted and heavily redacted. -Thibbs (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
      • Ah, the ethnic bias card. I'm not spending time trying to present a reasoned argument against comments on contributors. Be aware that accusations of personal misbehavior without evidence are considered personal attacks, and anything more of this sort will result in a block request. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize if you felt attacked here. That was not nearly my intention. For the record I have zero reason to think that you have any ethnic bias. I was trying (perhaps inelegantly) to point out that there may be a systemic bias which can lead us astray in cases like this. I definitely did not intend to accuse you of anything. I'll try to rework the other question to make it less of a problem. -Thibbs (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC) (Done. -Thibbs (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of concern that my argument will be dismissed as a simple WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, let us return to the basic yardstick by comparing WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#KEEP. On the delete side we only really have one argument: Deletion rational #8 ("If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful."). On the keep side we have #3 ("They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility."). As I have demonstrated above, the "ВD" term is in common usage online (at the magazine's website, at ru.wiki, and at large on the internet) and would aid searches so it meets WP:R#KEEP #3 and it is apparently found useful as evidence linked earlier from "the pageviews tool" as suggested by WP:R#KEEP #5. -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC) (And again I apologize if anyone felt attacked by my earlier comment. The entirety of my point could have been better summarized by directing others to the "Hint" listed under WP:R#KEEP #5-Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Week keep for "ВD", because that's an initialism for "Великий Dракон" [1]. Grammatically, it should be "Великий Дракон" with "Д" being Cyrillic capital "D", but that's their stylization. It's occasionally referred to as «Великий D» [2] and "D" is prominently enlarged for logos and such, so there's precedent for recognizability. But I admit it doesn't seem a very likely search term due to needing to type in mixed scripts. That said, no one is really likely to accidentally type it either, so a deliberate search should lead to the usage. I don't know of any guidelines regarding mixing scripts, so I can't comment on whether such usages are considered appropriate. To me as a Russian-speaker "Я" in "Toys Я Us" actually appears less appropriate (if not borderline ridiculous). The "R" there is a mirrored letter and not a Cyrillic letter, whereas "D" in "ВD" is the actual Latin letter. (Dislaimer: Asked for input on talk page, since I am familiar with this publication and speak Russian.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as search-term targets. Assume good faith on the part of creators of these redirects. Although Russians also understand the Latin alphabet, the Russian article about the M113 currently has five occurrences of Cyrillic-alphabet “м113.”[3] The Russian article about Malaysian Air flight MH17 cites one reference that refers to “мн17,”[4] and social-media discussions on that topic are full of references to “MN17” by participants in English as a second language. Inevitably someone will search for these terms using the keyboard they use, or the spelling they’ve seen or copied from a source where the Latin-Cyrillic distinction is invisible. Why make it harder for them? —Michael Z. 2019-07-16 14:56 z
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 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.

Mrs. Bill Clinton[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm interested to hear whether people think this makes a worthwhile type of redirect. I am in favor of deletion, apart from instances where such a name is actually in wide use. Implausible search term, W:PANDORA, and also it seems like it applies to WP:NOTGOOGLE as well, since this is essentially a roundabout way of saying "Bill Clinton's wife" etc., which is appropriate as a Google search, not as a Wikipedia redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first two in the Hillary Clinton article, it says, "During her husband's campaign, Hillary began to use the name "Hillary Clinton", or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters". Delete the last two as not used in the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as my first choice since this was a relic of speech not used anymore. Keeping the first two per ZXCVBNM is my second choice since it has WP:RS backing them up. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. Redirects are cheap, and the Pandora's box is an unproven opinion. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all If we are going to keep any, it would be the first two, but I agree with the nominator that these are archaic and implausible search terms. Maybe some folks in Arkansas might have called her Mrs. Bill Clinton back in 1982, but no one knows her by that now. We don't legislate by Google hits, but "Hillary Clinton" gets 74 million of them and "Mrs. Bill Clinton" gets 16,000. CThomas3 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zxcvbnm since the name is used in reliable sources and thus the article itself. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first two; just because terms are no longer used does not validate the removal of their redirects. The other two, however, aren't common terms used to describe the targets. Utopes (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the first two per above. Mrs Denis Thatcher per the previous discussions and use in sources (google the exact phrase and you'll find loads). Mrs John Rolfe per WP:CHEAP, it does get use (e.g. [5] and is unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 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.

Korea 2018[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. Personally, I'd be amenable to retarget this to 2018 in Korea if that were created as a disambiguation. However, if done I think it should be as a group for all years 1948-present. If anyone agrees and has the time to carry that out, be my guest. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or disambiguate 2018 in North Korea and 2018 in South Korea. Vague and ambiguous, and AFAIK not a common way to refer to the Olympic Games. Also the added ambiguity of whether this refers to North or South Korea. Search engine results may vary, but for me a Google search brings up nothing relating to the games until the bottom of page 3. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig there is no primary topic for this but it is a plausible search term for the Winter Olympics, Winter Paralympics, and 2018 in the two Koreas. Google also brings up various trade conferences but I've not found any we have articles about. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'd be okay with retargeting this to 2018 in Korea, but it doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 20:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous. Sawol (talk) 02:34, 27 July 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.

Brazil 2016[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Brazil 2016

China 2008[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#China 2008

Erick 2007[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Erick 2007

Camp Badlands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Camp Badlands

Henry Kingscote (director)[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 resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect directs to the wrong page. I am about to add a link to South_Australian_Company#Foundation on the Henry Kingscote (disambiguation) page (and remove the link to him in that page), but I think this one should go completely for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I have just discovered that the Henry Kingscote in South Australia was Henry Kingscote (cricketer, born 1802), so I will try to fix things up accordingly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC) And another: done - but is the redirect necessary at all, or should it say (company director)? Director is ambiguous. Maybe the actual page needs a move itself, as he seems to be known for quite a bit more than cricket? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about splitting both Henry Kingscore articles to be their full names? Director is dubious - the other could be soldier. Neither is a particularly prominent cricketer. So using Henry Robert Kingscote and Henry Bloomfield Kingscote may be easier. The dab can easily distinguish them then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blue Square Thing, sorry for tardiness of response (I didn't get notified, and just rediscovered this!). Thanks for your suggestion - that sounds reasonable, so I'll do the reshuffle later. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done now - can someone please close this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:23, 9 August 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.

Allison Stewart[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. Agreement that this misspelling is plausible; keeping with no prejudice against article creation if notability can be demonstrated. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is a writer named Allison Stewart, but there may not be enough coverage of her to make an encyclopedia entry. Keeping the name as a WP:REDLINK would avoid confusion (per RFD#DELETE #2) and possibly spur someone to find enough sources for a new biography (RFD#DELETE #10). Currently no incoming mainspace links. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a very plausible misspelling. I don't see enough evidence that the writer is notable to be encouraging creation of an article at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I don't think there's any pressing need to encourage the creation of an article, any ambiguity can be dealt with when it becomes an issue but until then this looks like a valid redirect from misspelling. PC78 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See this similar discussion. Readers looking for the other writer are going to be disappointed either way, especially if she's non-notable. Meanwhile, we help readers looking for the journalist who make the extremely plausible error of giving the wrong number of Ls (note that the double-L is more standard). I'm a little sympathetic since both of these people are writers, and a reader might get the impression that they're actually the same person, but we still don't want to hamper access to an article on the basis of someone we have no coverage of, especially if they might not even meet our notability standards. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 25 July 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.

Kristoffer vonHassel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Kristoffer vonHassel

Overspecialization[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) 22:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific to the target. Not even mentioned at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:34, 25 July 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_July_25&oldid=910821808"