Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 8, 2019.

Images of Saddam Hussein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 24#Images of Saddam Hussein

Scource of God[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) 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a typo for "Scourge of God", a nickname for Attila the Hun. An unlikely to be meaningfully reduplicated error. Most readers will have it corrected automatically in the search bar, anyway, and as it is not a misspelling of the target name, but simply of a nickname... Also, it could just as easily be a misspelling of "Source of God" and redirect to Existence of God. In short, not useful. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a bridge too far for a typo, per nom. signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 10 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.

Christ Holy[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) 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual phrase. Very minimal pageviews (8 in the past 90 days). — the Man in Question (in question) 23:29, 8 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.

Somatometry[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 Anthropometry. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly a notable topic and IMO should be a redlink until an article can be written (perhaps at Body measurements). Another idea would be to redirect to Bust/waist/hip measurements, the current target of the Body measurements, although this is a subtopic of of the subject signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment another option is Anthropometry, of which this is a subtopic or branch topic. It depends on whether Body measurements is meant to be as comprehensive. Bust-waist-hip is a very superficial subset of measurements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anthropometry, the measurement of the human individual. Add an explanatory hatnote along the lines of {{redirect|Body measurements|"vital statistics"|Bust/waist/hip measurements}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Anthropometry. It should really be used or explained somewhere, though. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 18 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.

Revenge of the Mummy (Universal Studios Dubailand)[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. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of these redirects infers that these things exist or existed: as the target article makes clear, they never did. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The existence of these redirects simply infer that there is content about this concept at the target. Someone searching for information on these rides will learn by following the redirect that these rides, like the park itself, was cancelled. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 8 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.

The Green Bag (magazine)[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 Green Bag. I see a rough consensus that there is not a primary topic between the magazines/journals. The disambiguation page Green Bag already has both entries, so I will retarget there as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, which satisfies those !voting "disambiguate" keeping WP:INCOMPDAB in mind. That also means that the magazine/journal founded in 1997 needs a disambiguated name, and I am choosing The Green Bag (1997) to match The Green Bag (1889–1914). I don't feel strongly about the name at all so feel free to boldly change it or hash it out at WP:RM if desired. That being said, I decided against using the subtitle because none of the sources use it (including the Green Bag website). -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Bag is the name of two different magazines, the historical legal humor journal at The Green Bag (1889–1914), and the current journal located at The Green Bag. My retargeting of this redirect to the disambiguation page Green Bag, per WP:INCOMPDAB, was reverted without explanation by User:Jay D. Easy, so I bring this here to settle the question. bd2412 T 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is a journal considered a magazine? If it is then pointing to Green Bag is best, or The Green Bag as a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, assuming it's the primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of the publication format, I don't know what distinction can be drawn between a journal and a magazine. In this case, both are regular publications containing collections of relatively short pieces by varying authors. bd2412 T 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Green Bag. If we think there's no primary topic between the two publications, rename the current one and retarget to the disambiguation page. I would support either of these outcomes. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig I'm unable to identify a primary topic between the two publications mentioned above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Green Bag and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, though I'm happy for disambiguation at another title. I don't think there is a clear boundary between a "journal" and a "magazine", so it will be appropriate to disambiguate this title. Deryck C. 09:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting per nom seems fine to me, but my preference is probably: Retarget to The Green Bag (1889–1914) and add a hatnote on The Green Bag (1889–1914) "For the journal, see the The Green Bag." But I do think the distinction between journal and magazine is slight in terms of what readers might search for. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 8 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.

ManiFold[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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random, unuseful capitalization. I withdraw this nomination per {{R from CamelCase}}. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No camelcase stylization of this term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the Man in Question, you didn't nominate this right. Either way, deference should be made to {{R from CamelCase}} redirects. They are a historic part of this project, and nothing is gained by haphazardly deleting the few that remain. MiQ: How did you find this redirect? It's freaking tucked away. The only person who's edited it recently was me a month ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I didn't tag it! A late night oversight. Actually, you're right this is an example of camelcase, I just wasn't familiar with this style of camelcase (as opposed to ManifolD) when I nominated it. I don't remember how I found it. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have moved the CamelCase tag to the top, for clarity, and removed the unprintworthy, since one of the other tags applies the category. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 10 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.

Fuck a duck[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Fuck a duck

President Snowflake[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#President Snowflake

Sheikh Zubeir[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Sheikh Zubeir

The Flanneled One[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 soft delete as undiscussed. From a cursory search, it appears to be a semi-obscure fanboy meme. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary, not redirect material. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:30, 8 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.

USSR 2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#USSR 2

User:BrendonTheWizard[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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:26, 10 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.

Stranger Things redirects[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) 03:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something, these aren't names of Stranger Things episodes (and they aren't mentioned on the page). Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might shed some light on it. Looks like they were episode titles that were either unconfirmed and/or later changed. PC78 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely to be significant now that the actual episode names are out (and the episodes themselves). If they do turn out to gain some kind of significance in time to come, they can always be recreated. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:30, 17 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.

HP![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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

HP! is not at all the same as HP1. If someone mistypes HP! for HP1 and hits enter, they will realize their mistake and fix it, the same way as if I accidentally typed WW@ for WW2, I would not expect there to be a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per previous discussion and tag as a {{r from typo}} and {{r from ambiguous term}}. (Also, for the record, WW@ has redirected to World War II since 2012.) - Eureka Lott 13:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha. Didn't know about WW@. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I was there at the 2010 discussion when it was redirected to HP1. Not a fan of that decision. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA. You could conceivably have such redirects for any page title which has numbers in it. Better to highlight the mistake IMO rather than masking it with a redirect. PC78 (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussion. Whether other redirects from similar titles are useful or not is not relevant to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 14 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.

Abrahahm lincon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Abrahahm lincon

Wikipedia.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Wikipedia.

αlpha and βeta[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. Deryck C. 11:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Alphas begin with Greek α, not English A; all of the Betas begin with Greek β, not English B. No use to such mixing. See WP:RfD/Log/2010 January 6#Βeta, WP:RfD/Log/2010 January 6#Аugust 2, and WP:RfD/Log/2019 July 2#Маrchа dоs Реsсаdоrеs. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete. α and β in title not visible as explained by nom. This is exactly the whole point of a redirect: I cannot type an "α" on my en keyboard, so I geniunely expect that "alpha" should do. (for α-Naphthylamine). -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may misunderstand. Each of these does not begin with the word "Alpha" or "Beta", but with a nonexistent word "αlpha" spelled with the letter α, and a nonexistent word "βeta" spelled with the letter β. I quite agree with you, and that's not what's going on here. In fact, the point you are making is kind of the same one I am making. This is the same situation as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 2#Маrchа dоs Реsсаdоrеs. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see for midlist βeta-Aminobutyric acid, but top Αlpha-Aminonaphthalene does not show this? (αlpha-Aminonaphthalene?). Anyway, of course a delete all for those actual situations you describe. -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: All instances above are as I described. You can check this by copying the first letter of any entry and entering it into the search bar. The search result will be the page for the corresponding Greek letter. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I changed into Delete all.
    Finally got it!: α and β are lowercase in Greek alphabet, and since wiki turns titles in uppercase-first αfoo and βbar change to ({{ucfirst:...}}) Αfoo and Βbar. As it happens, uppercase α and β in greek alphabet look the same as Latin A and B (see alpha). As wikilinks work, we can write lowercase and still get the blue link: αlpha-Aminonaphthalene. In that Redirect page itself, I added {{lowercasetitle}} which shows the alpha character nicely & legally.
    The first "A" in Αlpha-Aminonaphthalene is actually the Greek "A". U+0391 Α GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA is a different Unicode character than U+0041 A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, so it might sort differently e.g. in categories (depends on wiki software). This point in your nomination, re "English A", is slightly incorrect (not fatal though ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, I have changed the relevant titles into straight lc alpha and beta, so that the issue shows. @The Man in Question:. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. αlpha and βeta are non-existent words. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the one I made was created in error, I really meant to make Alpha-Aminonaphthalene (which I have now done). I must have assumed what I saw was A-AminonaphthaleneIt would be good if the mediawiki software did not autocapitalise the Greek letters on English Wikipedia. So the others (created in error), should be replaced with alpha- and beta- redirects, using Latin letters. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly advise moving all of these pages to the appropriate page title (if it doesn't already exist) with redirect suppression enabled; for those that do already exist, delete. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to the "alpha-", "beta-" spelled pagenames (using Latin a, b, lowercase here); wikilink label is (Latin a, b). These are the links User:Seppi333 is referring to. Note that the full-Latin-pagename may be the article name (not a redirect; see #2). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 16 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.

aɪˈtælɪk[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) 03:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciations do not valid redirects make. Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 6#ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • dəˈliːt pər nɔːm ænd ˈpriːˌβiːəs ɑːr ɛɸ diːz. ɪmˈplɔːzɪˌbəl sɜːrt͡ʃ ˈmɛθəds. (aɪ ˈriːli duː proʊˈnaʊns ɛɸ ænd βiː laɪk ðæt; aɪ doʊnt noʊ waɪ.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    /ˈhɑ/! /aɪ wəz ˈwʌndərɪŋ/... — the Man in Question (in question) 18:11, 10 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.

Necromancing the Stone (Charmed Episode)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of miscapitalisation. In fact, there are no mainspace articles linking to this redirect, hence no concern regarding history. If ever the episode gets its own article, it will be titled "Necromancing the Stone (Charmed)". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I didn't make my position clear. The only issue with the nominated redirect is a capitalization error, which doesn't come close to making it an improbable typo. It meets none of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE, and as an old redirect, deleting it could be WP:RFD#HARMFUL. - Eureka Lott 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I sounded too offensive, I apologise. But the issue is, the incorrect capitalised redirect appears in the search bar instead of the correct version which is Necromancing the Stone (Charmed episode). Also, deleting unhelpful redirects helps clear up this category. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These issues can be resolved through tagging. If you don't want redundant redirects in the episodes category, they're easy to remove. Tagging redirects as unprintworthy should remove them from the searchbox autocomplete, but it appears that's not happening. I think that's a bug. Thryduulf may know more about that, but it looks like he's away right now. - Eureka Lott 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time right now to comment on this specific redirect, but unprintworthy redirects have appeared and disappeared from the search results suggestion box a couple of times over the years. Personally I think it would be good if there was a method to exclude pages from autocomplete suggestions, either by means of the unprintworthy tag or by some other method (probably some magic word that could be included in templates as desired). If there is nothing on phabricator currently, then start a discussion somewhere (WT:REDIRECT possibly, or maybe one of the village pumps if its wider than redirects) and then request it at phabricator (don't expect anything speedy there though). There has never been a consensus though that the undesirability of a redirect appearing in autocomplete suggestions is a valid reason for deleting a redirect, so if this is the only argument against the redirect (I've not read the whole discussion) then it should probably not be deleted. Remember the internal search engine is only one of many ways of search or browsing Wikipedia and most methods do not have autocomplete suggestions, and it is not possible to know which methods people use for any given page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. The appropriate Rcats are already there to mark it as incorrect disambiguation and an avoided double redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 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.

What wp is not[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#What wp is not

What is now the United States[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. Deryck C. 11:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful search term and potential Pandora's Box. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a Pandoras Box. Not needed. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely search term. I think the redirect's grammar is also a bit awkward --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 10 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.

Do i sounds gay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Do i sounds gay

How to climb[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. Deryck C. 11:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Long wrote a book called How to Rock Climb! This title, How to Climb, is not the name of the book, and is too generic. If it were to be kept, it would need to be retargeted to Climbing; but scroll down and you'll see my opinion on that kind of redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 8 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.

What is this thing called thinking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#What is this thing called thinking

What not to wera[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) Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly just a typo. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi! Creator of this redirect here. Yes, a typo, obvs.  :) But the creation of a redirect at this title was intentional. A basic reflex I have when I type something incorrectly into the search bar and it leads me to a redlink + search page is to create a redirect from whatever the typo was. My reasoning is that typos aren't randomized - they arise either from a person's misunderstanding (and misperception of spelling is generally a small Levenshtein distance from the correct, so some misspellings will be 'common'), or from a mechanical error - a person strikes one or more wrong keys, or the right keys in the wrong order, and again the possible misspellings are not infinite and actually small in number.
    In short: I don't think anyone should go out of their way to create redirects from typos, but if *you* made the typo, it's reasonable to assume someone else might, so a redirect there will help future person, and causes no harm to the project. Ford MF (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your reasoning, but that would open up a Pandora's Box where literally anything can be a redirect. If the absence of such typos as redirects created a real barrier to readers finding articles, then I would support their inclusion and retention. But a typo (rather than a misspelling) is easy to fix. I'll admit some typos are so common as to be useful, but I don't think this one qualifies. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean ... why don't you think it qualifies? Pandora is an essay (or set of opinions, really), not policy, so I don't think it should be referred to as if it were definitive, or a consensus set of criteria for inclusion. And even the essay describes unneeded redirects as _implausible typos_. In this particular case, such a redirect would have actually saved a Wikipedian (me!) some few seconds of hassle, so I would not describe this as implausible. Ford MF (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, flipped ordering for adjacent letters is a fairly common variety of typo. Additionally, Pandora's box has already been opened as far as redirects like this are concerned. I honestly don't think it's worth taking the time to bring to RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 06:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not worth AfDing plausible typos (unless extreme case where someone is mass producing WP:BEANS).—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fair typo for somebody to make.Utopes (talk) 04:22, 12 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.

What is a museum[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 some without prejudice against individual discussions for the others. The ones deleted:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store. Compare:

  1. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75)
  3. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam

— the Man in Question (in question) 03:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Nothing to add to nom. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Settled tangent
  • Ultra Strong Historical Keep "Is interstellar space travel possible", this is a very early Wikipedia page by Larry Sanger, and its initial edit (which was only up or a few minutes) gives a historical look at some of the types of things Sanger was thinking over at the time. Please consider removing this one from your list and let it be. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wow, Is interstellar space travel possible was created in July 2001 by Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, with the original version containing some interesting commentary on what should be an acceptable article title. Take a look. I'd be inclined to keep this just for the history. Or maybe it could be moved somewhere out of the mainspace to keep the history available? --Yair rand (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, for its historical value alone. I have removed it. It would be nice if there was a way to move this kind of thing out of the mainspace. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, you have a good sense of history. And historically it's best to just leave it in mainspace. I would expect at some point that historians will be going over Sanger's early edits, which is where it could then be found. Jimbo and Sanger are two very historical figures of the 21st century, even if you can now grab a beer with them. Time travelers will want to do just that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a few of these redirects, even if most of them are redundant. Why does the Universe exist? probably shouldn't be deleted, since this is one of the central problems of metaphysics. Jarble (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please specify which redirects you feel this way about, so we can discuss each one? As for the one you mentioned, I did not list Why is there anything at all and Why is there something rather than nothing? (both of which are mentioned in the target article) for this very reason, but I didn't think "Why does the Universe exist?" was so iconic a phrasing that it passed the not-Yahoo-Answers test. A Google Books search shows that this phrase is found in very few books, and in inconsistent contexts. (A simple Google Books search turns up many matches, because Google Books will approximate a search even if it is put in quotation marks; you have to actually check the individual entries to see if the phrase occurs.) But of course we can discuss the merits of keeping this and any other redirects. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It's folly to think we can attain natural language processing by manually creating these redirects. In a related front, these same editors can work on misspelling and related search term redirects, which is subpar at best.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: Do not let my "delete all" !vote preclude keeping individual entries. Consider me neutral on those specific ones that may have traction to keep.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. I don't have time to look at all of these in detail, but some of these (e.g. ones about the sky being blue, about the meaing of life, Is global warming real, etc.) are very valid search terms, others have survived previous discussions, or are titles of creative works. Finally the rationales citied in the nomination are about article content not redirects. No prejudice to focused, small nominations with rationales relevant to the specifically nominated redirects, but a group nomination this large and disperate is not appropraite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated explicitly in the nomination, I did not nominate Why is the sky blue? or What is the meaning of life? because they were worthwhile: They are not on the list. I would ask that you do take the care to consider the nominees so as not to create an unnecessary trainwreck. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have included some redirects about the sky being blue, etc. I ask that you do take the care to consider making focused nominations with rationales that are specifically relevant to individual redirects. The burden is always on the person wishing to change the status quo. Explicitly all redirects that have been discussed before should be kept unless nominated with a rationale that explicitly addresses the issues raised in the previous discussion(s). Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator, though I have no strong objection to keeping Can you hear the shape of a drum? and What is law?. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of votes so far (in order to prevent this from being mistaken as a trainwreck): — the Man in Question (in question) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. DELETE ALL / DELETE ALL except #3 and #4 below : 6
    2. KEEP ALL : 1
    3. KEEP Can you hear the shape of a drum? : 4
    4. KEEP What is law? : 2
    5. OTHER : 2
    • That would be useful if this was a vote, but it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very few, and Delete the rest. Yes, most of these should be deleted, but there are some that I feel are fine which I will cover.
    1. Why is the sky blue with it's capitalization/punctuation variants
    2. Why is Mars red with it's capitalization/punctuation variants
      These I feel are fine, due to these questions in particular being relevant, possible search terms in their own right. The latter may be up for debate, but it's not "what is the color of Mars", but "why is Mars red". Similarly to asking why the sky is blue, it is very common to inquire about why Mars is red.
      Yeah, I feel like "Why is Mars red" is just like "How many ounces are in a pound?"—a common search for Google, sure, but not a valid redirect for Wikipedia. And as for the variations of "Why is the sky blue?" I also intentionally did not include Why is the sky blue (i.e., without a question mark) in the list, but the rest seem entirely superfluous since the article's title is not "Why is the sky blue?". The lack of such alternate capitalizations will not hinder anyone from finding the correct page either through the search bar or through a Google search. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    3. What is law?
    4. Can you hear the shape of a drum?
      Topical questions in their own right.
    5. What is the nature of life? and any questions asking for the meaning of existence.
      Explained prior. Even if the phrase What is the meaning of life was excluded from the RfD, there are variants still present that could be spared for the same reason, even if it isn't as common.
      But these other phrases are not notable question phrases in their own right, and the article's title is not "What is the meaning of life?" so they are not simply variations on the title. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      With all of this being said, everything else should go. I might look over the list and see if there's anything else that seems important to keep, but this seems like a good list to keep out. Utopes (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for being specific. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why does the Universe exist? as well as all pointing to Meaning of life. Don’t know about the rest so probably keep until individually considered. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Screeeeeeechhh.... *crash.* This thread has become a trainwreck officially. I've stricken the delete portion of my !vote. I don't feel comfortable with the direction this has taken (Pictured). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let this thread be a reminder to all about WP:TRAINWRECK–MJL ‐Talk‐☖
Again, I don't at all see why this is a trainwreck. Worst comes to worst, all of the controversial entries can be made into separate noms to be discussed, and the rest can be deleted. A trainwreck means an utter failure due to the number of entries, but there are very distinct patterns to the objections above. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_8&oldid=1108511278"