Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2020.

State of Singapore[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 Singapore (disambiguation). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect current target to Self-governance of Singapore#Full internal self-government (1959–1963). However, i am not sure the article which about the history of the city-state's Self-governance is the primary topic or not. Or something else like Colony of Singapore (which started in 1946 until 1963 per infobox, but "State of Singapore Act" was actually ratified in 1950s) is the primary topic? Matthew hk (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - This appears to be reasonable enough in reference to three different entities (the historical self-governing state with some administrative controls on it, the related but distinct colony with different governance, and the current state as under a distinct status since the 1960s). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate This title might have been created to distinguish between the City of Singapore (historical entity) from the self-governing entity. Just as City of Singapore also points to a disambiguation page, it makes sense for this one to do so. — MarkH21talk 16:23, 17 April 2020 (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.

Bradley Bell (Writter)[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 20:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth keeping? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is such an obvious typo that it's reasonable to expect people to notice it immediately and then self-correct. I'm inclined to support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (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.

Anti-white[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. Editors may want to consider nominating anti-Black for discussion, as it was raised as a comparable example signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted page history, unclear what the best target would be. Page was originally an encyclopedia article of sorts, then moved to Hate crimes against white people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was subsequently nominated for deletion, with the result that the contents were merged to Hate crime, leaving this redirect. In 2018 the target was changed to Reverse racism with no discussion. However, that article makes clear that it's a faulty label (for a faulty concept). Normally non-neutral redirects are fine, but this one is such a loaded, POV term that isn't used to meaningfully refer to any topic on Wikipedia, that I think it might be best to delete and just let search do its job. An alternative might be to retarget to Category:Anti-white racism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As far as I can see, the term "anti-white" has a variety of meanings and none are more notable or prominent than any other. It can be actual physical attacks against white individuals. It can mean the holding of negative stereotypes against them (while not actually doing anything in terms of those views). It can mean implementation of bigotry and discrimination in terms of speech. It can mean a lot of things. While this is a radioactive topic, yes, the answer appears clear to me: deletion. Broadly speaking, I'm not seeing a lot of redirects that simply begin as 'anti-X'. In terms of groups of people, 'anti-bisexual', 'anti-Hungarian', 'anti-Mexican', and 'anti-woman' all don't exist, for instance (picking those particular people right off of the top of my head). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an adjective it still appears problematic to the point of being useless to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think that it's clear if we have consensus about 'anti-black' either. I'd support deleting that redirect if it came up for a discussion, using just about the same reasoning. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a surprise, us having 'anti-Black' but not 'anti-black'. Not that this proves any point, but I'm going to state once again that broadly speaking we don't really have 'anti-[category of person]' redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2020 (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.

Undermind/New example[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 20:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure these redirects are needed anymore, since their respective pages are already several years old (over 10 for Undermind (album)) and they only got very few pageviews in 2019. Regards, SONIC678 19:13, 16 April 2020 (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.

Hawai'i[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 target to Hawaii. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Hawaiians spell the name of the state with an ʻokina, so it is not a WP:SMALLDETAIL that would reverse the primary topic from the state to the island. Retarget to Hawaii. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: There is a difference between The Big Island & Big Island. The islands on Big Island are simply Big Island. If you said Big Island instead of The Big Island in Hawaiʻi, you would elicit funny looks from people. Peaceray (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that this is the usage in Hawaiʻi, but I imagine that the same distinction may hold for the other Big Islands. It's not obvious to me that the two titles should have different primary topics; both could easily point to a DAB or Hawaiʻi. — MarkH21talk 23:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it wouldn't be unreasonable for both "Big Island" and "The Big Island" to have the Big Island of Hawaii as primary topic, as the others don't seem that important. The one possibility for a legitimate reason for divergent primary topics is if some of the critical Big Islands (say #2 and #3 in popularity) have that as their name and are used in a sentence like "I am going to Big Island". In that case there could be a legitimate argument that even if Hawai'i isn't primary for Big Island, it is primary for The Big Island. But I haven't done enough research into the various entries to form a conclusive opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any other island being referred to as The Big Island. I am aware that this may be a regional colloquialism, but I do not believe it is used as such elsewhere. Does anyone else know of another island with this specific moniker? Peaceray (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: So should the 2nd para of Hawaii (island) replace "the Big Island" with The Big Island? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Peaceray (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the two titles should probably have the same primary topic, whether it’s the big island of Hawaii or none at all. I see some other “The Big Island”s, such as a climbing spot in Fontainebleau ([1], [2], [3], [4]) but not nearly enough to outweigh the Hawaii usage. — MarkH21talk 16:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, see WP:THE. Very few geographic entries treat "The" as an inseparable part of the name; an example would be The Hague. For the rest, "the" may be prepended but is not capitalized. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POFR applies to The Big Island, not WP:THE. WP:THE refers to article titles, not redirects. We often have redirects from misspellings & variations on names that never would be valid as an article title. Peaceray (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hawaii per nom and PTOPIC. — J947 [cont] 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to state per nom. I have not seen a preponderance of articles that make the punctuation a big deal to distinguish the state from the island. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I also think that the state is the primary target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the state as the undisambiguated title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget same as above. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2020 (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.

🪳[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as unicode characters that don't register properly on quite a few devices which will most likely cause confusion Tknifton (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all the above redirects were created by the same user who is now blocked under a checkuserblock. Tknifton (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (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.

Spill (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from the title of a minor, non-notable music website to a general list of media outlets in the city where that magazine happens to be located. This results from the website's own staff previously attempting on multiple occasions to offlink its entry in that list to their own website, in defiance of our rules against offsite links to other websites in lists -- but that's since been trimmed back to a mere unlinked mention of its name, which itself isn't even warranted as the publication is not a notable one. What these have actually been used for to date, further, is to render mentions of its name in album and musician articles into bluelinks leading to the list entry -- but because it's been deadvertorialized, the list entry fails to provide any new information to warrant the website's name being bluelinked in that context, and because it's a non-notable website whose critical commentary does not count as NMUSIC-assisting coverage for musicians or albums, use of it as a source in music-related articles really shouldn't be happening at all. Accordingly it doesn't actually merit being named in the list in the first place, let alone having redirects to the list in place from its name. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - As stated above, the publication doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Spill appears somewhat well-known, I suppose, in its local area, but that's it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for now as not mentioned so it wouldn't even qualify to be listed in Spill (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both since there's nothing a reader could learn about Spill at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2020 (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.

Biquadratic function[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 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to turn this into a dab page with one polynomial meaning and one network theory meaning per WP:NOPRIMARY. This was reverted on the grounds that the network theory meaning is "unusual". In the first page of gbook results seven are the network theory meaning and only three are are the polynomial meaning (and all three of those are different editions of the same work). A general google search reveals that at least over 60% of results are the network theory meaning (may be more, a search term that reliably finds them all is difficult), so if anything is primary, that is, but I would settle for a dab page. SpinningSpark 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The term biquadratic function is well established in mathematics for denoting a quartic polynomial function that is even (that is, it has no term of odd degree). This usage is standard for several centuries. Presently, this is this meaning that is the target of the redirect. The same term is also used in computer science for refering to another mathematical concept, namely to a rational function whose numerator and denominator are of degree two. For taking this usage into account, I have created two redirects, biquadratic rational function and biquadratic function (computer science) whose both targets are the definition of the concept in Rational function. I have also added a template {{redirect}} as a hatnote to Quartic function. If the old meaning is considered as the primary topic (this is my opinion), this is probably the best solution
If the primary topic should be the one of computer scientists (for a mathematical concept), one should either have a dab page or do several moves of redirects. In both cases the result would be confusing for mathematicians, and we would have the strange situation that the mathematical terminology would be decided by non-mathematicians. D.Lazard (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How long the term has been in use is not the deciding factor for determining primacy. SpinningSpark 22:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does suggest, however, that the first page of Google Books results is probably skewed towards the network theory usage since network theory is (relatively) a much newer subject. and may not be a good indicator of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I also don't see how you found that A general google search reveals that at least over 60% of results are the network theory meaning. — MarkH21talk 02:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By comparing the number of search results from the search terms "biquadratic function" and "biquadratic function" synthesis|impedance|network|circuit|passive. SpinningSpark 16:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see 7,210 results from the former and 3,320 results from the latter. That only amounts to 46% of the results coming from network theory.
This method is also quite imperfect, since "biquadratic" function strangely has fewer results than "biquadratic" function synthesis|impedance|network|circuit|passive, and you wouldn't want to claim that more than 100% of those results are from network theory! — MarkH21talk 13:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a lot of duplicate hits on the network theory results, from mirrored hostings of the same papers/books. — MarkH21talk 15:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2020 (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.

R2 RapidBus[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 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

very recent created and unnecessary Joeyconnick (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the other ones were created as Rx RapidBus, redirecting to their appropriate routes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually no, only R3 Lougheed Hwy was created as R3 RapidBus. The others were renamed in that vein (by the same user who created this one yesterday) as they were rebrandings of existing services, and those names lasted all of a day or two. We settled on a naming convention that matches how the transit agency refers to them weeks ago, so a late creation in the now-unused style is not necessary, and—unsurprisingly—nothing links to it or is ever likely to link to it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of other RapidBus pages have simular redirect pages. Ex. R4 RapidBus → R4 R41st ave. — Eric0892 (Talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those redirects only exist because you moved those pages to that naming convention prematurely without checking with anyone and gaining a consensus. The consensus is now established, we're not using the format "Rn RapidBus", and the redirects are no longer needed. But it is especially unnecessary to have just created R2 RapidBus in the last few days weeks after this matter was settled. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - But I think that users who do not know of the naming covention and is searching for the article using "R2 RapidBus" will benifit from the redirect page. — Eric0892 (Talk) 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eric; it doesn't matter if it's a correct name; it matters if it is a plausible redirect. — J947 [cont] 23:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be a great case of 'redirect from technically incorrect name' or whatever precisely it's called. Deletion seems to be the wrong call. It's not a silly or useless redirect like we often see here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the verdict? Keep or no? — Eric0892 (Talk) 22:41, 13 April 2020 (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:HAT[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) 23:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is cross-namespace redirect of a type that is deprecated – it's in the article namespace so has the potential to appear in search results, and it doesn't function as a standard template shortcut because it won't work if transcluded. There's a small number of similar redirects lying around, and some of them are kept because they're used for linking to the template. T:HAT doesn't appear to be used much (only for links, all on user talk pages). It's also ambiguous: the current target makes sense, but then so does the previous one (which the template had for the two years of its existence before 2011) – that was a template subsequently merged into a project-space page, which has precisely the type of content that people might expect such a shortcut to lead to. Pinging editors who've edited the template: 1, 2, and editors who've used it: 3, 4, 5. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC) – I've just realised that the ambiguity is even worse, as Template:HAT goes somewhere completely different. – Uanfala (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is nothing above that justifies changing or deleting this "grandfathered in" shortcut. Even "it won't work if transcluded" is untrue. All that is needed is a leading colon, as in {{:T:HAT|Example hatnote}} (this does not work at present because the shortcut has been disabled temporarily). To illustrate the use of a leading colon to transclude non-template shortcuts we can use {{:T:S|example strikethrough}}, which yields T:S. T:S is a shortcut to {{Strikethrough}} and can be used without the leading colon on talk pages and also with the leading colon to transclude the strikethrough template. Same goes for T:HAT (when enabled) and the {{Hatnote}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the template is to be kept per the grandfather clause, then it would need to be retargeted back to the content at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnote templates, to match the intended meaning in the existing uses. – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that does not comply with the policy consensus garnered in the Village Pump RfC to which you linked: There is consensus that all such redirects should (as a general rule) point to a designated namespace (eg "T:" to "Template:" or "T:" to "Talk:",... so it goes against consensus to target a "non-T" page like Wikipedia:Hatnote. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paine Ellsworth: Actually, transcluding template redirects nominated at RfD does work:

T:HAT

* Pppery * it has begun... 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pppery! For some reason, that didn't work for me when I tried it. I must've done it incorrectly. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All such shortcuts are inherently ambiguous, so that is no reason to alter or delete this shortcut. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale, with due regard to the RfC linked to above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It looks like I used this redirect once, almost eight years ago, back when the target of the redirect was this old version of Template:Hatnote templates documentation. If this documentation page still existed, then having it as the redirect target makes more sense to me, since it's a convenient shortcut to information. However, the new target of Template:Hatnote is a template itself, making this an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect per the RfC that Uanfala cited. We should not encourage new editors to use unusual syntax like {{:T:HAT|Example hatnote}}, especially since this shortcut has literally never been used in this way before (it was originally designed as an informational shortcut intended to be linked, not a template shortcut intended to be transcluded). Uanfala is also correct that this redirect is now ambiguous because of Template:Hat, and previous links intended for the old documentation page are now confusingly leading to the hatnote template. Since there are no transclusions currently, I doubt there is any compelling need to keep this template on a "grandfathered" basis. Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2020 (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.

Janam TV (Kerala BJP channel)[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 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect with political party name ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As far as I can tell, this relates to the fact that the TV channel is perceived as having a right-wing tint in its politics. That doesn't make the redirect appropriate. We don't have 'CNN (Democrats supporting channel)' or the like. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2020 (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.

Worst school massacre[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 20:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems kinda POV here, especially the "worst" part, which is ambiguous and depends on people's viewpoints (for that matter, I can't seem to find the word "worst" anywhere in the article), as they could be searching for just about any school massacre. Not sure what do to with this redirect...unless someone can find a reliable source showing that this particular school massacre is indeed the worst one. Regards, SONIC678 06:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete. Ambiguous, and adds value judgements that we should avoid as an encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 11:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no reason that that term would be assumed to apply to that specific massacre. Natureium (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can't really be applied to any one incident over another, and there doesn't seem to be a list that encompasses this topic - List of attacks related to secondary schools has a bit of a different scope. Hog Farm (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The label of a moral event as "worst" involves a ton of questionable implications of which good people can disagree. I'm with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of school massacres by death toll, which should provide answers for anyone searching for this. There's also List of school-related attacks, but I think that's probably too general for this term. - Eureka Lott 15:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of school massacres by death toll. Agree with Eureka Lott. Now a general Comment...was the Bath School disaster the worst school massacre in United States history? So far as I know, yes, it was, in terms of the death toll it remains the sad winner in the US (but that's just the US) and this is an online encyclopedia with a world-wide scope, so the redirect isn't quite false or unverifiable but! it does show an editorial/POV/puffery-bias. Should that asserted fact be in the article?...In my opinion no - the article is about the event, not the school massacres that took place afterwards, not about the sick individuals who have known about the Bath School disaster and have tried to be The Worst(which could have been the case with some of the more-recent school massacres and that is all I'll say about that). Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV, biased term. JIP | Talk 16:31, 18 April 2020 (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.

Freedom tickler[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 20:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, appears to be unencyclopedic slang. Hog Farm (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - For a time in 2005 to 2006 this was a short unsourced article called "French tickler". Then a vandal moved it to "Freedom tickler", evidently as a joke to match "freedom fries". It was then converted by someone else to a redirect, as it remains. French tickler is actually a type of condom with an entry at Wiktionary. But, I don't see any need to move this page back and create a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Rather, it's all useless and can be deleted in my opinion. Nothing links there. Crossroads -talk- 05:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only near-encyclopaedic mention I found was a NN song on an album for which we have no article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2020 (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.

Eel Envelope[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 20:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, appears to be an obscure slang term. Hog Farm (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2020 (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.

Explicit sex[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 redirect to unsimulated sex seems near-universally unpopular, and the other current target of Pornography has several supporters with rational arguments, and several opposers, also with perfectly reasonable arguments. There is definitely not a consensus for redirecting it there. Sexual content was also suggested, and has had fewer outright objections - generally due to the fact that it's a very short and vague article in itself, but specifically covers the media aspect rather than the specifics of the act itself. A significant number of other users, however, suggest that there just isn't an appropriate target for these, and that we would be better off deleting them. Given a hearty lack of consensus for any of the retargetings, we must ultimately come to the conclusion that there just isn't a target that a consensus can be found for. All of the targets have specific, definable problems with them, and hence it seems like the rough consensus here is that deleting both is the least-worst option. ~ mazca talk 18:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a synonym, and could even be misleading to readers. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can get on board with pointing them at the same target, but would suggest Sexual content as a preferable target for both. Not all graphic sex is pornography. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Not a bad thought. That's not the greatest of articles though, so I'm going to think a bit more before supporting or opposing that. We'll need to add the sexually explicit redirect to this nomination if we want to change that target. I'll do that in the morning if nobody beats me to it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed pointing this at Pornography. Sexual education materials are an example of sexually explicit material that is not pornographic, as are many films (e.g. Blue Is the Warmest Colour or Antichrist (film) for extreme examples, although arguably any film rated R, 18+, NC-17 or an equivalent for sexual content has explicit sexual content that is not pornography) . signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but Pornography is a better redirect than Unsimulated sex, that is what I am trying to say. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here for the "sexually explicit" redirect. Keep "sexually explicit" redirected to Pornography article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'I came here for the "sexually explicit" redirect.' You may be on the wrong site for your *ahem* purposes? Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this, but then saw the comment regarding "...I am opposed pointing [Explicit sex] at Pornography..." by Rosguill after my original close. Thus, I've reopened it since I no longer see consensus, and here it is relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here for the "Explicit sex", and all I got was this lousy redirect. Keep both redirected to Pornography. It might not be the only plausible meaning for either term, but is highly likely to be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC for both. BD2412 T 17:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I'm maybe going against majority opinion here. At the same time, I've got to really object for three reasons. First, explicitness doesn't equate to being only meant as titillation. Second, explicitness is too unclear of a concept here anyways. Third, explicitness is something that exists in reference to all life experience and not just that depicted in media.
    • It's absolutely common for media that in no way, shape, or form is intended to be seen as pornography to feature sexually frank content that gets labeled as "explicit" due to the lack of censorship. Let's be honest here. 'Explicit' is, ironically, one of those vague "suitcase words" (to use Marvin Minsky's term) that we pack in meanings that we want and take out meanings that we don't want, all depending solely on the context. Even within a particular culture, what's seen as "explicit" sexual material will vary widely. This is particularly notable when it comes to, say, cultural attitudes on breastfeeding and toplessness. An R-rated American film that's not seen as pornography at all, just an uncensored drama about life, might feature breastfeeding women in a non-sexual context in the background while later topless women are treated sexually in a quick moment... what happens with exportation? European audiences might laugh at the high rating in the U.S. and consider it all massively 'tame' while certain Mideast audiences might try to ban the film altogether. It all depends. God knows that any media involving either bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender people, prostitution, or other political minefields get labeled all sorts of things. Rocketman is/was sedate enough for me to watch it with my parents, but to another person in another cultural context it can plausibly be labeled as "explicitly pro-gay pornography". I'll disagree, but the nature of such "suitcase words" means that I can't conclusively prove or disprove anything. Again, it depends. What is "explicit"? And how "explicit" is the nature of an event until something goes from non-pornographic to pornographic (assuming that we're not even getting into the can of worms that is defining "pornographic" either)?
    • As for the third point, the vast majority of life, ubiquitous smartphones in some cultures aside, in the world is not recorded. "Explicit" events, however we define that first term, are happening all of the time, and all over the world, at any particular moment. This is all outside of the experience of consuming and generating media. As an analogy, 'explicit violence' would never go to 'depictions of death' given that the vast majority of people who have died a violent death haven't had that involved with any sort of media. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying my stance in light of CoffeeWithMarkets's contribution, I prefer retargeting to Sexual content, would consider deletion an acceptable second choice, and remain firmly opposed to targeting these redirects to Pornography. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to give time to evaluate CoffeeWithMarket's long comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think pornography is the best target, but could live with sexual content. I'm firmly opposed to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexually explicit -> Pornography is a terrible redirect, Sexual content would be a much better target. I think the best target for Explicit sex is less clear. --JBL (talk)
  • Delete both I don't think these are equivalent at all. A non-pornographic film which includes a sex scene between two actors who aren't really having sex is sexually explicit but would not usually be considered pornography and isn't unsimulated sex. Hut 8.5 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Okay, one more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both – There is no semantic equivalence to "pornography" in either term as already pointed out, so I am strongly opposed to that target (it would amount amount to rather single-tracked-mind editorialization). Nor is there any equivalence to the suggested 'sexual content', which makes the mistake of necessarily associating it with media. "Explicit sex" might be a synonym for "overt sex" or "unsubtle sex", as opposed to say some erotic acts or non-penetrative sex, and might be related to an event rather than a depiction. "Sexually explicit" is an adjective phrase like "big", anyway, not a noun. Both "explicit sex" and "sexually explicit" belong in a dictionary, not on WP. There does not seem to be a suitable target, anyway. Hence, delete both. —Quondum 22:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we'll need to ask !voters for their second choice to try to come up with something that most can accept, or we'll end up with a status quo that no one is really happy with. @OcelotCreeper, Flyer22 Frozen, and BD2412: If you had to choose, would you rather delete the redirects or retarget them to Sexual content? @CoffeeWithMarkets, Hut 8.5, and Quondum: If the redirects had to be kept, would you rather they be targeted to Pornography or Sexual content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 April 2020 (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.

Kenneth Hulme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Kenneth Hulme

iPhone SE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 28#iPhone SE

((Vakhidov)) Sobit (Abdumukit) Valikhonovich[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 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vohidov's JDMIC/NDRC reference name was Sobit Abdumukit Valikhonovich Vakhidov on his detainee assessment, which makes this name a plausible search term (and by extension the last of these names in front, which we have), but I'm not sure someone would search it this way (may be why it has few pageviews compared to its target). Regards, SONIC678 00:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - With the parenthesis, this seems baffling. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination asserts this redirect is not a "plausible search term", but apparently without first performing a web search, to see if it was in use online. Note the second entry in this list.
Works related to List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 at Wikisource
Someone called for the deletion of this redirect in January 2017. I think the points I made on the deleting administrator's user talk page are just as valid today, as when I made them three years ago. They agreed, and restored the redirects.
For the first four years it was open the US military followed the tradition of repressive regimes everywhere, and simply "disappeared" the captives it held in Guantanamo. They kept their names secret. Most of their families did not know they were alive.
The Associated Press sued the DoD, under the FOIA, to get those names published. On April 20th, 2006, the DoD finally complied with a court order, and published a list of the names of 558 individuals who underwent a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and, on May 15th, 2006, they published 778 names, claiming it included everyone who had been held at Guantanamo.
I am not exagerrating when I say that the list was republished literally thousands of times. I know it was thousands because, in 2006, google produced a list of thousands of newspapers when you searched for the list. Today's google search only produces 35 hits. That doesn't mean that those newspapers that archived the articles where they republished those list don't still include this name. It just means google search algorithms no longer shows them. People still read them. Plus those 35 hits include more recent official documents that include this exact spelling.
Yes, this name looks funny. There is a reason for this. Those at the DoD who had first denied the FOIA request. those who fought against the FOIA request in court, and those who were delegated to comply with the FOIA request, decided to obfuscate the information, to make it as hard to use as possible. Together with the list they were forced to publish the transcripts from those CSRT hearings. While they published the transcripts of 400 hearings in six dozen or so big PDF files, they scrambled them, and did not provide an index. PDFs that are images of documents, and are thus not machine-readable, machine-searchable, are harder to deal with, all around, than the PDFs that re machine readable, machine searchable. They take up orders of magnitude more space. Nevertheless, this is how the DoD released the documents. You can read the version on the NYTimes because they spent an enormous number of person-hours optically scanning those images. That kind of scanning takes a huge amount of time when the image is fly-specked, as these were. So, the funny look of this name is probably part of that obfuscation.
Our job here is not to sanitize and clean up the record of the DoD.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geo Swan's research. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there's a link from a document in Wikisource, per Geo Swan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2020 (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/2020_April_16&oldid=1072177314"