Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2020.

Wiktionary 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 keep. Deryck C. 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry for a neologism. Should we have soft redirects for the entire contents of Urban Dictionary? That seems to be against policy. Guy (help!) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from MfD. signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:SOFTREDIRECT, which illustrates the four-fold purpose of Wiktionary soft redirects to which there are exact name relevant entries for each is available, as follows:
  1. Helps us to enforce WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:DICDEF by ensuring non-encyclopedic content stays elsewhere;
  2. Helps to promote usage of, and participation in, under-utilized and under-participated Wikimedia sister projects;
  3. Helps to prevent content cleanup from non-encyclopedic pages from being created, or repeatedly re-created in some cases; and,
  4. Helps to provide readers, patrons, and users to the content they're seeking.
Note these redirects were only just created, so we can't even ascertain usefulness and utility per WP:K#5/WP:R#D8, so I see no reason why we can't keep these and revisit these in a year or more, per WP:RCHEAP. Wiktionary soft redirects are absolutely to our core purpose in that, as stated above, they help us to enforce that core purpose of not being a dictionary (and other things). No real policy-based reason for deletion has been cited, as the nom even knowledges, in his entirely good-faith nomination that he is uncertain whether there is such a reason for keeping or, conversely, deleting. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To add a further relevant comment, I was just speaking with Rosguill yesterday about the reviewing procedures for the New Page Patrol team members, and they mentioned how the Redirects guide was only added fairly recently. Absent that guide is information on soft redirects, so we've already encountered a number of issues with page patrollers not knowing what to look for when patrolling for new pages since soft redirects are governed as "redirects" but report in the Page Curation Tool as "all others," with a predicted stub class. Rosguill has invited me to draft a section on soft redirects, to which they and Barkeep49 can review, refine, add to, or otherwise reduce (if too wordy). So, given all of that, I'm not going to create any new soft redirects until that information is updated and cascaded to the patrollers (so they know what to look for); however, these redirects are fine, noting Category:Redirects to Wiktionary. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all since I see absolutely no WP:REDLINK potential for these titles. Though if the Wiktionary entries are deleted, these could definitely be deleted per WP:G8. (I think the nominator may want to considering nominating the Wiktionary entries for deletion, provided there is rationale to do so per Wiktionary's content retention standards ... which I have no knowledge of in the least.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, although I'm skeptical that "I just work here" (and to a lesser extent, "googlewhore") really belong on Wiktionary. But, for as long as those pages exist, I think that keeping this redirect is fine. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per above, and agree with proposal to hold off until a new draft on soft redirects has consensus. Britishfinance (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: For clarity, by "new draft on soft redirects has consensus," you mean WP:RPATROL guide for patrollers, not the WP:SOFTREDIRECT policy, right? I assume that's what you meant, but just thought I'd clarify. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dmehus, the former (although, depending on how that turns out, perhaps the policy guide may also need updating)? Britishfinance (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Ah, thanks, that's what I thought you meant, and yeah, we'd definitely want to have everything "in sync." Interestingly, in order for Rosguill to move these to RfD, the Wiktionary soft redirect had to be commented out and a temporary hard redirect added to submit using Twinkle. So, even Twinkle needs updating for soft redirects. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Everything seems fine. Nothing stands out as particularly objectionable or weird when it comes to these. It's not as if we don't have huge numbers of slang-based redirects both from place to place here and to the other website. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 12 February 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.

Health and Wellbeing[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 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like much too specific a target for this broad phrase. The Health and Social Care Directorates were apparently formerly known as the Health and Wellbeing Directorate, but the word "wellbeing" now only appears in the article in reference to the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing. Retargeting to a broader article like health, well-being or health care would probably be appropriate, though I don't know which would be best and an argument could be made for deletion per WP:XY. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The term is so broad and vague that the best option seems to simply let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Disambiguate now or in the future, per nom, as I'm sure there are many dab links we can add. Doug Mehus T·C 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 13 February 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.

Next Irish general election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Next Irish general election

Tobacco (disambiguation)[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. Per WP:CSD#G14 by Justlettersandnumbers. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is not a disambiguation page - it is a list - and it does not otherwise disambiguate the term "tobacco", because the term is not ambiguous. Delete with the rationale of WP:G14. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shhhnotsoloud: The CSD rationale you cited also applies to redirects, so thus, I tagged the redirect with {{Db-g14}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Yes, but I judged it to be possibly contentious. If it is speedied, by all mean close this RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shhhnotsoloud: I suppose we shall see ... but either way, if I were an admin, I would have deleted this redirect if it had a {{Db-g14}} tag. And if this redirect is not speedied... Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is a leftover from when Tobacco (disambiguation) was moved to List of tobacco-related topics. As a retired patent lawyer, WP:G14 contains the sort of ambiguity which keeps expensive lawyers in business, keeps their spouses in the style to which they're accustomed, and sends their children to expensive schools. If this redirect targetted tobacco, G14 would apply with no question. However, it currently targets a "page that performs a disambiguation-like function", and G14 does not apply.
My solution? Retarget to tobacco and then G14 it. My invoice will be in the post. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I don't consider most list pages (such as the one this redirect targets) to perform a disambiguation-like function in the traditional-Wikipedia sense, but of course, anyone can dispute me on that. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I; but G14 is one of those guidelines which are open invitations to WP:LAWYERing. WP:TWODABS is another.
The only purpose of a retarget with the (disambiguation) qualifier is to tell User:DPL bot not to worry about links through it. IMO, every link through that qualifier which does not target a DAB page is a waste of space. Narky Blert (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can see lists performing a disambiguating-like function in that they are a navigation aid, like categories and navigation box templates, when I read WP:AOAL (one of our better written content policies, I think). I think this is open to interpretation by the deleting administrator; some admins may speedy delete it, others may decline. Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G14, assuming no history to preserve, as I see Steel1943 has already tagged. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Steel1943 Wow, I don't think I can recall a CSD tag staying up into the second day before. Seeing this RfD was still open, I half expected to see the speedy deletion tag removed, but it's still there. So, maybe there's still hope for a speedy deletion. ;-) --Doug Mehus T·C 14:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ritchie333: You were looking for examples of CSD tags that stay up for multiple days without response? Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems pretty clear that this will be eventually deleted, and that's exactly right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:03, 12 February 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.

Ordinary People (2018 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19#Ordinary People (2018 film)

Toxic gases[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19#Toxic gases

Wikipedia:ORG[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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people would assume that this is an alias of Wikipedia:No original research. Delete per WP:XY. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Longstanding "Wikipedia:" namespace shortcut with several incoming links. That, and I don't see how this redirect could refer to what the nominee is stating because of the "G" in the title of the redirect, so I'm not sure who the "many people" are. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. I can't see the possibility for confusion here. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943 and Narky Blert. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this redirect makes more sense at the current target (ORGanization compared to no original research) and is long-standing for this specific purpose. Retargeting would be disruptive. Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Hog Farm, but I personally use WP:NCORP and WP:NORG for this specific notability policy. Doug Mehus T·C 14:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: I prefer the others too. I think this is similar to the RFD for FORRED awhile back - both are reasonably widely-used redirects that aren't constructed entirely according to policy, but retargeting or deletion would prove to be disruptive. Hog Farm (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hog Farm: Yeah, I agree. I contemplated maybe removing WP:ORG from the target, but it's not quite as bad as the ambiguity in WP:FORRED so I'm fine with leaving it as an explicit shortcut. Doug Mehus T·C 15:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others; retargeting or deleting shortcuts is usually restricted to low-use ones. J947 (c), at 18:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It has plenty of incoming links, and is a widely used shortcut, deleting or retargeting it would bring no benefits. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:55, 13 February 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.

Nationalism and socialism[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. 12:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a little bit reductivist to redirect Nationalism and socialism to an article comparing Nazism and Stalinism. Simply targeting Nazism may be appropriate, but given that the search term could be understood as simply referring to an intersection of nationalism and socialism, perhaps deletion is more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. The target article is a comparison of two systems, but this redirect could equally well target National Socialism (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change or Delete. I'd suggest considering redirecting Nationalism and socialism to Paternalistic conservatism or deleting.   // Timothy :: talk  17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment of the suggestions made so far, I think that National Socialism (disambiguation) could make a decent target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be opposed to this option since "Nationalism" is not the same word as "Nationalist", "National" is not used in the same way as it is in "National Socialism", the inclusion of the word "and" in the redirect leaves the expectation that "Nationalism" is a separate target from "Socialism" and not just an adjective for the latter word, and the redirect is not a spelling or capitalization variation of the phrase "National Socialism". Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY since Nationalism and Socialism are two different articles, and I am not finding a suitable target article that encompasses both subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Left-wing nationalism could be another potential target (and the article at least attempts to clear up any confusion with National Socialism) by way of a note in the lead. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Possibly, but that is now the 2nd or 3rd suggested article presented thus far for retargeting. Since none of the suggested targets thus far would qualify to be on a disambiguation page titled "Nationalism and Socialism" (or "Socialism and Nationalism"), the potential for multiple subjects enforces that the best option for our readers would be for this redirect to be deleted so that Wikipedia's search function can provide search results for readers looking up this term rather than being redirected to any specific target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - This should go to 'nationalist socialism'. And that particular page ought to be expanded and revised given the number of organizations and theories that encompass both nationalism and socialism, I suppose, but I'm not quite sure how to proceed there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. I don't see any valid redirect target for both terms together. CThomas3 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XY, clear case of two different things trying to be bundled into one. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY, per WP:R#D2 and the above. Doug Mehus T·C 23:53, 12 February 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.

Criticism of Esperanto[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 content at the target. With clear consensus for option 3 and seeming lack of consensus for complete removal, I restored the contents of Special:Permalink/714683796 to the target article (if there is a more recent version that I am unaware of, feel free to re-restore that instead). I added it where it seems most natural and did not change anything; other editors can work with this henceforth. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On October 2019, I have edited the redirect because the "Criticism" section does not exist on the target article. The options of what to do with the redirect are following:

  • Option 1 — Delete the redirect.
  • Option 2 — Restore the article that was once removed.
  • Option 3 — Restore the "Criticism" section on the target article.
  • Option 4 — Do nothing.

Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 3 — Restore the "Criticism" section on the target article. I have seen that article in 2015, and then its content was gone per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Esperanto, and before it, by mentioning "Removed unsourced section" in the article editing. Esperanto has many problems and its article requires such section.--Editor-1 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Oppose Option 1 per WP:ATT - Noting Martinkunev's comments at Talk:Esperanto/Archive 21#Criticism of Esperanto and a series of discussions per Talk:Esperanto/Archive 20#Criticism, and going back even further, I'm not seeing any consensus to remove that section. On the earlier section, I noted a now blocked user removed the criticism section. It's a bit hard to follow, though, and I haven't looked through all the archives. Martin, since you are an editor of that page, can you fill us in on the background? What do we need to know? Should the nom notify all of the human editors of that page of this discussion --Doug Mehus T·C 18:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - I don't see a reason why there should not be "Criticism" section in the article. Nobody has provided arguments against having the section. Restoring the section will solve the redirection issue. Dmehus, I am not that familiar with the article to provide more background. Martinkunev (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 per Martinkunev. The talk page's refusal to obtain consensus on inclusion is about to have it forced upon them. There's no reason not to include a criticism section, being mindful of our other policies, of course. Doug Mehus T·C 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - The above arguments make clear sense to me. There's nothing inherently that unreasonable about having a 'controversy' or 'criticism' section, and Esperanto is an internationally notable creation that's been subject to quite a bit of commentary over the years. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:36, 17 February 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.

Interpretive Dance (TV series)[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 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a TV series... episode. The only reason this redirect exists is because the article on the Community episode was originally located at Interpretive Dance, but was moved to this title by a user who wound up there while searching for the dance technique and later moved again to its current title, but whatever the case, this title isn't a plausible search term at all. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Interpretive Dance" is a TV episode, NOT a TV series. St3095 (?) 13:15, 18 February 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.

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz[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 Latin script. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not unambiguously refer to the English alphabet. It also refer to the French alphabet, Italian alphabet, Spanish alphabet, etc. Retarget to Latin script. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This string isn't the same as the French, Italian or Spanish alphabets. French has 26 letters plus several diacritics and ligatures; Italian and Spanish have 21 and 27 letters respectively. Dutch too has 27 letters. Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Italian language use "j", "k", "q", "w", "x", and "y" on foreign words. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, they're not included in the order of the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritics have also been used in english. According to all official documents, the french alphabet has 26 letters (which coincide with those in english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinkunev (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Latin script, which is the article for this set of letters. The nomination may not have been strictly accurate, as Narky Blert pointed out, but I still agree with the conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. (My comment was a drive-by while I thought about it.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per WP:R#D2 as plausibly used per WP:R#K5. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom.
    SSSB (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nome. Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 13 February 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_February_11&oldid=941580390"