Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2020.

Ostrich egg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 14#Ostrich egg

Pigs (1972 film)[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. Justification was provided, withdrawing the nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film does not appear to have been released in 1973. One of the citations in the article mentions "1972" in its title, but if you click through the link the information appears to be about a different film released in 1984. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs premiered either in 1972 or 1973, and also received a theatrical release in 1984. A few sources refer to it as having premiered in 1973, and an article by Diabolique Magazine even lists a specific premiere date and location as May 23, 1973 in Detroit, Michigan. However, there are several sources, including multiple book sources, which list the film's release date as 1972. I ran into a similar problem when writing the article for the film Wakefield Poole's Bible, which had conflicting sources listing it as having been released in 1973 or 1974. Luckily, in that case, the director of that film wrote an autobiography in which he stated that the film was released in 1973. However, since I can't seem to find any confirmation from the director of Pigs regarding its premiere date, I'm not sure how we should proceed. –Matthew - (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if there's this level of uncertainty I'm ok with keeping the redirect, since it's plausible that someone looking for it may only know the potentially-inaccurate 1972 date. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 6 January 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.

Several redirects to Russell's paradox[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 List- redirects, keep Set- redirects. For future RfD discussions, please follow the instructions at WP:RFD#HOWTO and place tags on the redirect pages. There was a clear consensus from a discussion with several editors so I don't have any reservations about deleting the redirects for which there was a delete consensus, but properly listing the deletion discussions will both ensure that editors interested in the redirects are notified and will help admins closing the discussion by enabling them to use scripts that close RfDs rather than manually deleting each redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've deleted all of my other issues on this page, just because I've recently discovered Special:WhatLinksHere's capability of showing redirects to pages. I've discovered several redirects that belong to the realm of WP:DAFT, so many that I've created a special RfD section. I apologize if this is frustrating, but the page would be WAY too big if I didn't do this. Here are all of the offending redirects:

So, luckily, that's all. I've left a usersubpage redirect and two set-of-sets-containing-itself question redirects, because one is just a usersubpage and the others are questions directly asked in the paradox. I think all of these should be removed as they are unnecessary. Nobody will ever really search for these, and they're mainly just jokes. As said, a good place to put these would be WP:DAFT. NineFiveSeven 19:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before this nomination was bundled

Clerk comment: There were some comments that were lost when the nominations were bundled. [1] I've readded them under this collapse so they aren't lost. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn't spam at this point. But seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. How many redirects to Russell's paradox do we need? NineFiveSeven 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP. They are useful. What's the point in deleting them? If someone doesn't remember the name, it's a helpful aid.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Today#List_of_lists_of_lists_that_don't_include_themselves, it's the same thing as this. (This is absolutely not because I want to help set a new record for fastest-deleted article. Not at all.) NineFiveSeven 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NineFiveSeven: No it's not the same thing. That's why I created it. Russell's paradox has two levels, not three. A list is essentially another word for a set of finite cardinality, and this has potential to be referenced much more. That's why I created it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no such list in Russell's paradox or anywhere else on WP, and absolutely no need for one. If it is desired to illustrate Russell's paradox, it can be done more clearly with ordinary sets; there is no need to illustrate it with Wikipedia lists. This would be a pointless article. --ChetvornoTALK 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetvorno: It would have nothing to do with Wikipedia lists. Just because the title starts with "List" doesn't mean it's a Wikipedia list. It's just a reference to Russell's paradox. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I do think it should go to WP:DAFT if it is deleted. NineFiveSeven 17:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It would be helpful if some mathematics books described it this way, but it has no Google results besides this article and references to it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I just created the redirect for List of lists that don't include themselves. I personally am surprised this didn't exist.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is one too many repetitions of the word "list" in the title, so it should be deleted as meaningless. If it existed there would only be one "list of lists that don't include themselves", so a "list" of such lists would only have one member. Second, neither of these lists exist in Russell's paradox or anywhere else on WP, and there is no purpose for having them, so both article names should be deleted as WP:DAFT. It's just a cute joke. --ChetvornoTALK 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetvorno: The redirect with only two lists instead of three, which I created after seeing this deletion discussion, obviously isn't supposed to be a list article. It's just another way of saying Set of sets that don't include themselves. If someone forgets the name of Russell's paradox, they should be redirected there. The shorter redirect is not a joke. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: The article name is misleading to readers on two levels: first, it implies that such a list of Wikipedia lists exists, and second, it implies that it is significant. Why should Russell's paradox be illustrated with WP lists? If it is another way of saying Set of sets that don't include themselves why didn't you create that redirect? (don't take this as a suggestion, it's not needed) --ChetvornoTALK 18:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetvorno: It has nothing to do with wikipedia lists. We also have Set of sets that don't contain themselves. At this point we should really wait for other opinions.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, delete all. Also, please sign the above post. --ChetvornoTALK 19:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Set of all sets that do not contain themselves as a standard description of the core of the paradox; neutral on the other two variants of that as much less likely targets; delete all the rest (the "list"-based ones are somewhat confusing with respect to WP's uses of lists). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, and delete the redirects per Deacon Vorbis; I had come to the same conclusions. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
  • Keep sets, Delete lists. My reasoning is generally the same as Deacon Vorbis, except I believe the other "set" entry to be a likely attempt by a non-specialist to enter the first "set" entry, and the "list" entries may correspond to a different paradox. As a specialist, I could be wrong about what non-specialists see, though. List/set of all descriptions which do not describe themselves corresponds to a different paradox. Invited from WT:MATH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones starting with "set"; delete the ones beginning with "list". The former are standard ways of summarizing the paradox, while the latter clash with the specialized Wikipedian meaning of "list" as a type of page. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones starting with "set"; delete the ones beginning with "list". Per others above. Paul August ☎ 14:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: An IP from Hamburg claims that an OEIS user would agree with Arthur Rubin, XOR'easter, and Paul August. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 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.

The Mandalorian (Star Wars)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 14#The Mandalorian (Star Wars)

List of ambassadors of India (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a disambiguation page: it is a list of lists and does not disambiguate the term. Speedy delete G14 declined, but other (disambiguation) redirects targeting lists of lists have been speedy deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 'G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).' (That guideline could be clearer, e.g. by adding "are" after "or".) Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. WP:G14 is ambiguous: 'G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).' However, {{db-g14}} is unambiguous: '[G14 applies to] a redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" that targets a page that is not a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function' (emphasis added). Taking the two together, (disambiguation) redirects to certain non-DAB pages (those which "perform a disambiguation-like function", horrible expression) are legit.
I think that is bonkers. The only purpose of a (disambiguation) redirect is to tell User:DPL bot that a link to a DAB page is legit, and should not be flagged as a WP:INTDAB error. IMO (disambiguation) redirects to name pages, SIAs, or lists or whatever have no purpose, and should be deleted; but G14 says not. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If anyone feels like opening a discussion on the wording of G14, please {{ping}} me. I may have a strong feeling as to what the result of such a discussion should be, but I have an even stronger feeling that clarity as to what G14 does and does not cover, arrived at by consensus, is much more important. Narky Blert (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I agree with you completely, but G14 was arrived at by consensus which I sense is unlikely to change. In the meantime, Category:Lists of lists shows there are dozens and dozens of lists of lists and only one (this one) has a (disambiguation) redirect to it (see User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001). "List of ambassadors of India" is not ambiguous (there's only one meaning of ambassador; there's only one India): there's no alternative meaning of "List of ambassadors of India". There is absolutely no use for this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changing mind again). CSD rules for deletion are necessarily more stringent than AfD rules, and G14 is relevant only to CSD. The target is not a DAB page, and the redirect is completely unnecessary. Delete, to discourage the others (per Shhhnotsoloud's observation). Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the target is not a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 11:00, 12 January 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.

Urbanology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 14#Urbanology

Third hand[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 swap Third hand (disambiguation) and Third hand. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the absence of R Third Hand or a DAB page, I think it a stretch that someone searching for "Third hand" ends up at an article about a musical work. By comparison, First hand is a DAB (that doesn't actually list any article called "First hand") and Second hand is an R to Used good, the DAB being at Second hand (disambiguation).

For disclosure, I'm also proposing to move Firsthand (TV series) over Firsthand, and First Hand (album) over First Hand, but I think this is separate enough to list without conflict. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could we do a soft redirect to wikt:third hand? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the objection, but if we only have one use of a phrase, why not send readers there? If they're looking for something else, they'll be disappointed regardless. Deletion would cause harm with no clear benefit. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 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.

"davy steele"[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 G7. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created in error by self, without capitals - serves no useful purpose. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 6 January 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.

Windows Janus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

As I mentioned some time ago on Talk:Windows 3.1x#Janus, there is evidence from the Comes v. Microsoft trial that Windows 3.1 was never called Janus, contrary to popular belief, and is said to be a combined bundle of Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5.0. 93.91.252.108 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If there is a public o=r widespread belief that thsi was a codename for Win 3.1, that ought to be mentioned in the article (if there are sources), and a redirect is in any case appropriate, even if the belief is incorrect. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:45, 6 January 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.

Rainfurrest[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 speedily deleted by Fastily. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no mention of the event in question on the target page (nor anywhere else on the wiki). Gaioa (T C L) 15:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • G7, I am page creator and meant to have this deleted. I don't know why I forgot about this one to be honest. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:49, 7 January 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.

Bath toy[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. Note: Both the editors who said "Support" have made it clear that they meant support for deletion. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term need not refer exclusively to rubber ducks, as there are many other types of bath toys as well. I don't know if there's a good target for this redirect; no broad-scope article seems to exist. ComplexRational (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bath toys are not always rubber ducks. For example, there are toy boats, or, toy whales.The creeper2007 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • support seems to be a good article in the future --Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 6 January 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.

The Exhibitionist (album)[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 01:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Exhibitionist was deleted following this RfD, so I'd like these to be deleted as well for the same reason. Vaporgaze (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons given in the linked RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per the linked discussion. They should have been properly included in the nomination. Glades12 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They could have been speedy deleted per criterion G8 if they had targeted the correct target in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 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_January_6&oldid=1148110851"