Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2020.

Five-Day Revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Five-Day Revolution

Ivern[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 21:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another League of Legends character not mentioned at the target. We have articles about both the character's English voice actor David Lodge (voice actor) and the Japanese voice actor Jin Urayama, and for that matter I could probably create an article on the Korean voice actor Oh In-seong (wikidata:Q11261612), but targetting a character to a performer runs into WP:XY problems. Separately, Ivern is also a surname, but we don't have an article about anyone by this surname (it is the maternal surname of Emilio Jacinto Mauri, but it seems it's not actually used to refer to him, so I don't think a {{R from surname}} to him would be justifiable.) It's also the Occitan word for winter, covered at wikt:ivern. Anyway I'd suggest deleting and letting the search engine do its job. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It is the surname of the authors of a few references but other than that my findings match those above. Thryduulf (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Generally if not mentioned at the target, not a suitable redirect. --Micky (talk) 01:55, 23 June 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.

History of the world[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should go to World history because that seems like the likely target. However, I don't feel comfortable changing the redirect myself because of the large number of pages this would affect, but this is something that I am willing to do if the consensus is to change the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to World history per nom. Seems strange to have "History of the world" redirect to anything but "World history", given that those concepts are pretty well the same thing. Happy to help with the AWBing needed to fix the ensuing mess. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing !vote to keep current per Sdkb below. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or disambiguate per nom. Just for context, this was created at the hand of an RM. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to World history per nom (1st choice) or disambiguate (2nd choice), and update the links to this title on the affected pages if needed. This move would be more helpful to readers searching for the history of the world, because not all history is recorded by humans! And on a calendar of the world's history, human history is in the last few minutes, as one of my old community college textbooks explains. Regards, SONIC678 18:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's some (understandable) confusion here about how the articles are differentiated. World history is an academic discipline, whereas Human history is the overview of the history of humanity. Someone searching for "History of the world" is almost certainly looking for the latter, since that term isn't an alternative name for the discipline. Additionally, until the RM in March, "Human history" was located at "History of the world"; readers may still remember it at the old title (and links may still go there), so even if the move were a good idea, we would want to wait before doing it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: Good point, there is a substantial difference there. I've changed my !vote accordingly. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the immense number of pageviews this redirect is receiving, I have re-enabled the redirect to target its current target as to not confront readers with an unhelpful maintenance template – instead to help them to an appropriate article. — J947 [cont] 22:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Naypta, Anarchyte, Sonic678, and Sdkb: What are your thoughts on disambiguating the page? Interstellarity (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Interstellarity: I think Sdkb raises a good argument, but I think it's also important to recognise that with such similar titles, a reader that types in "History of the world" looking for "World history", but stumbles upon "Human history" might be surprised. Because of this, I've changed my !vote above to include disambiguation. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Interstellarity: I'd be happy with disambiguating it, sure. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Interstellarity: I'm also OK with disambiguating it, per Sdkb's argument people might be looking for human history, but of course there are those who're looking for world history, as I've argued above. As such, I'm adding more to my !vote here. Regards, SONIC678 15:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not support this. "World history" is the name of an academic discipline akin to Comparative history, but "History of the world" is not. A disambiguatory hatnote at Human history is enough, especially given the discrepancy in pageviews. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate makes more sense to me in this circumstance, after reading the different perspectives above. While Sdkb makes a good point, so does Anarchyte. Someone searching for "history of the world" could honestly be interested in either option. --Micky (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hatnote at human history (which already includes world history) works well in my opinion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 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.

Bank station (Ottawa)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Bank station (Ottawa)

Graded-commutative[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. The majority of participants were in agreement to retarget, but no one addressed Deacon Vorbis's objection. No prejudice against renomination if it addresses Deacon's concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Supercommutative algebra, as not only referring to rings? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not a big deal. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yes, the nomination has a point. —- Taku (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as is. The proposed new target is less general (and possibly less common). For example, this redirect is already used in the wild at Cohomology ring, where it refers to the common notion of a Z-graded ring with the usual graded commutativity relation. There's even a short blurb at Graded ring#Anticommutativity about the full general notion, but it doesn't mention the cohomology example or use the same terminology. What might make most sense ultimately is to merge Graded-commutative ring into this section at Graded ring, and if so, then point the redirect there instead. (If this is a good idea would probably depend on whether or not there's enough separate specific info about the graded commutativity requirement to sustain a full article, and I'm not sure on that one, but my initial feeling is probably not). But that's all a bit of a digression, and the point I was trying to make was that the proposed target is more specific than the original, both in terms algebra vs. ring and in terms of requiring a Z_2-grading for no good reason, and so would be a bad change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 21 June 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.

Episode 420[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Episode 420

WhatCulture[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 deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Boing! said Zebedee. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, it doesn't seem that WhatCulture is an example of a dirt sheet as described at the target (and even if it was, the redirect would be of dubious use unless it was due to mention at the target). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This redirect may have been made due to their coverage of wrestling, which isn't really necessary. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this redirect was made due to the negative stigma WhatCulture earns online. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made add however this redirect does get traffic. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is valid to mention WhatCulture in the target article (which seems unlikely to be the case) or unless a plausible alternative target can be found (which I have no suggestions for). --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even remember why I created it. I must've thought "Dirt sheet" was a company who owned the website without even reading the article. El Millo (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the creator agrees. --Micky (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator and nom --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4, per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_25#WhatCulture –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 27 June 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.

Kill Them All[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Kill Them All

Kill Them All (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 retarget to Kill 'Em All (film). (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or at List of Paramount Pictures films (2020–2029), delete unless a duly sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 21 June 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.

Two World Trade Cenetr[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 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely mis-spelling "cenetr". Didn't notice it at first. Was created, then moved to a better spelling, tagged for speedy deletion much later, and declined as old. Lithopsian (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly strong keep this thing, it seems to get a lot of pageviews, like 534 in 2019 alone, and plus the E and T keys are really close to each other in multiple keyboard layouts, sometimes even adjacent, like in the case of Sholes' 2nd layout. Regards, SONIC678 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For unknown reason typing "Two World Trade" into Wikipedia search box only suggest this page. Compared the pageview to the correct spelling, this page only got <1% pageview of the correct title, even after ignoring the spike. Hddty (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the point in keeping this misspelled entity. The correctly-spelled entity massively surpasses the misspelled one in average view count; I would understand if 'Center' was spelled in British English as 'Centre', but the misspelling does not match that.--SmartAn01 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a common misspelling, therefore an unlikely search term. In any case, if you type in "Two World Trade Cenetr" the correct one will appear, so it doesn't serve any purpose. Hzh (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence shows that this is actually a very likely search term. Search suggestions are a thing for only a subset of the ways people search and browse Wikipedia so should never be used to determine the utility or otherwise of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge pageviews + no harm = easy keep. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect? — J947 [cont] 23:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because by typing "Two World Trade" into Wikipedia search box, this mis-spelling appeared uselessly with correct one. This page also created from a page move (see this diff). Hddty (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) So? Only some people get search suggestions and clicking either one gets you to the article you are looking for. 2) Being a redirect from a move is as reason to keep a redirect as it avoids unnecessarily breaking old links, maintains attribution history, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) It's mildly infuriating that the mis-spelling has to be appeared at all. 2) How does this page even have an old links? It created by a user by moving a page and it only lasted for 4 minutes. This redirect only contain trivial edit history. Hddty (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1) being "mildly infuriating" is not even remotely close to a justification for deletion, phab:24251 is relevant though. 2) The how and why are not relevant, all that matters is that the traffic levels suggest such links exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with J947, redirects are cheap. --Micky (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any redirect that is unambiguous and used is very much not worthless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an extremely well used unambiguous redirect. Deletion would be harmful without bringing any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Look at the page views. {{3125A|talk}} 13:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I honestly didn't notice the typo at first (apparently same thing happened to the nom), so it's certainly a plausible typo. CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect gets a sizeable amount of visits. Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:26, 27 June 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.

List of Spider-Man toys[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 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such lists at the target article. Category:Spider-Man merchandise has only one member: Category:Spider-Man toys, which containts 6 articles so it might be possible to create a list of toys specifically and/or merchandise more generally or the redirects could be retargetted to the categories, but the present target is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created these redirects a while ago with the intent of soon turning them into articles, but since then I have lost interest in the subject.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator of the redirects. --Micky (talk) 02:35, 23 June 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.

Autro-Hungarian empire[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 Closed as withdrawn. (non-admin closure) {{3125A|talk}} 13:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one would search Austro-Hungarian empire without the "s", because the "s" is clearly heard in the words "Austro-Hungarian empire". Check out the average page view: 1 view per day. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a very low number. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kinda weak keep, while the correctly spelled version will appear in the search bar in most cases in the context of Austria-Hungary, this thing still gets a decent number of pageviews, for example 150 in 2019. Regards, SONIC678 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "a decent amount of page views" 150 throughout a whole year? that's pretty small. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For a misspelling redirect that's actually a very significant number - it represents about three people a week who would be inconvenienced by the deletion of this redirect without providing any benefit to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The stats show that this is a plausible typo/misspelling. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if there are incoming links from somewhere. While there nothing in Whatlinkshere that only means there isn't any in current revisions of articles on the English Wikipedia, User:Tim.landscheidt/Sandbox/Linked misspellings records that there were two in May 2013 so they presumably still exist in old revisions and may have propagated to mirrors, etc. Do also rememeber that search suggestions are only a thing for some methods of searching Wikipedia (mainly those using the internal search engine who have javascript enabled) and that accents vary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Redirect is cheap. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; unambiguous and helpful. — J947 [cont] 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible misspelling. PatGallacher (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Neither ambiguous or ridiculous. Not harmful in any way. Hog Farm (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap! We don't need to delete redirects that get decent traffic for any reason. Typos aside, this one has merit. --Micky (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE{{3125A|talk}} 16:47, 26 June 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.

Comparative morphology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Comparative morphology

Characters in Lego Star Wars[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. 23:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are referring to the Lego games. Not sure whether the first one listed should be deleted, but definitely delete the second. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first redirect, retarget the second. Characters is a general term so it should be kept to the lego star wars page. 'The Force' redirect should be re targeted to the The Force page as it's too specific for Lego Star Wars. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget Force (Lego Star Wars) to Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga, as it seems to be the only article where Force is mentioned in the context of Lego Star Wars. Not a very active user (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both – There isn't actually a list of Lego Star Wars characters anywhere, especially when one considers that the search term is more likely to be about the video game series than the line of actual Lego sets at the target. Similarly, we don't have any meaningful information about the second search term on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Rosguill. --Micky (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Rosugill and WP:VGSCOPE, and also the consensus at this discussion three weeks ago, we don't need all this stuff listing various characters and such, and the Force isn't detailed on Wikipedia. Both of these seem to pretty much be search bar clutter. Regards, SONIC678 02:57, 27 June 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.

Powerfist[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. Thryduulf is right about this being the correct spelling/usage for this term, but the lack of mention is still cause enough for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poorly-named (ungrammatical, bad grammar) popular culture term redirected to an article no longer even mentioning the term, but even if it wasn't run-together words, there's a historical/ancient term needed to be redirected to first (otherwise disambiguation: ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changquan#Hand_forms dchmelik (t|c) 09:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This does not appear to be ungrammatical in any way - the correct spelling of the Warhammer 40K term is "Powerfist" and it also seems to be the correct spelling of a term related to Fallout 4. See Compound (linguistics) for more about the grammar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:24, 21 June 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.

Wikipedia:Welcome/Partners[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 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect to userspace DannyS712 (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JenOttawa: Notifying you as a courtesy because I believe this has something to do with a project you were involved with. @Paolocmartin: If you would like us to delete this redirect immediately, rather than going through this full discussion, you can tag it with {{db-author}} and an administrator will delete it for you. Note that this is a discussion about the redirect from Wikipedia:Welcome/Partners to the page User:Paolocmartin/Welcome/Partners. There is no need to delete the latter page if you wish to keep it. If you do nothing, then the community will decide what to do with the redirect over the course of the next week or so. --NYKevin 20:48, 22 June 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.

Lady A[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 moot. The RM found consensus to move the page to Lady A. Closing to prevent a further forked discussion. Whether to create a disambiguation page at this point should be handled by our normal editorial processes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible redirect targets that use this name: Lady Antebellum and Anita White. In my view, a disambiguation page would be proper here, but a user has repeatedly reverted this. Sandstein 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close - There is an ongoing RM discussion involving this title. While I'm not convinced that it's going anywhere (it looks like it's headed for some variety of "no consensus/moot" outcome to me), I think it would be prudent to let the dust settle over there before starting yet another discussion here. --NYKevin 08:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. As you write, the move discussion appears almost certain to not end with the page being moved. There is therefore no reason to defer the RfD. Sandstein 15:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about actually reading the discussion and seeing that the consensus is moving Lady Antebellum to their actual name of Lady A?--BaseFree (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what we think the RM is going to do, this RfD will implicitly override the outcome of that discussion. Therefore, if you truly think the RM discussion is fruitless, you should go ask an uninvolved administrator to close it early. Starting a second discussion at RfD while the RM is still formally open could be (mis)interpreted as a backdoor attempt to undermine the RM. This would undermine the legitimacy of both discussions, and we would likely end up at DRV for a third round, possibly followed by a second RM or a relist at RfD (for a grand total of four discussions). I really would prefer to avoid that outcome. --NYKevin 03:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologise to Sandstein for the early closure of this redirect. It will be my lesson in future to not avoid doing this. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the policy is very clear against this change.
  1. Lady A, as of the rename, is the name used by reliable sources for the band. WP:NAMECHANGES is unambiguous here: we use the name reliable sources use.
  2. WP:R#ASTONISH is unambiguous here too. We do not surprise readers. Let's look at the graph of views. "Lady A" has declined in views, whilst "Lady Antebellum" has risen, due to the extra friction we're creating. Anite White peaked her views and she's now down to 100-200 views per day. The band has consistently been at 1.5k and is currently trending at 3-4k per day, after peaking at 25k. "Lady A", being the mess of a page it is, peaked at 40k before sharply declining due to the state of the page. With a quick search we see that even before the name change, and before the band was known as "Lady A", most searches for Lady A led to the band. Spotify was already using the name. Reliable sources were already using the name. Anita White is nowhere to be found on these searches, anywhere on these pages. You can scroll through the pages and the result is the same: people used this as a shortcut to get to the band.
  3. Nothing has changed. Interest in Anita White is minimal, aside from the naming controversy, which is what most the content on her Wikipedia page is about. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. If the band decides to reverse their name change, or the reliable sources decide to stop using "Lady A" and make the political statement themselves, that's fine, we'll follow suit. But this has not happened. We're inconvincing users looking for information on a band who is known as Lady A, who are by far the most popular user of that name, and is the same name reliable sources use. We're creating inconsistency between the lead and article title. And we're creating inconsistency between the infobox Google is showing, and the article on Wikipedia.
I'm fine with the existing hatnote at the top of Lady Antebellum to alert the small number of users who might be looking for Anita White. But, policy is clear: this should not be a dab page. It would be like making George Floyd a dab page just because George Floyd (American football) exists - the latter was actually moved from George Floyd after it became clear interest was in the former, not the latter. The same applies here. Though this discussion is moot because the move discussion is indeed not closed, and the result is not clear (as arguments on Wikipedia are based on policy, not vote) until an uninvolved and experienced editor closes it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally Close: Edit: BaseFree is correct, the consensus at that discussion is indeed to move to Lady A. The wording of the move request was changed half way through, so the "Support" and "Oppose" has been jumbled up, but on a closer read of the policy arguments, and the note left by another user, it is clear what the intentions of the !votes is, and there is an overwhelming majority to move to Lady A. Hence, this request should be procedurally closed as moot, in my opinion, and the current Lady A should be moved to Lady A (disambiguation) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a dab page. It turns out this was originally a redirect, then a dab page for Lady Amherst's pheasant, which are called "Lady A"'s colloquially, and then the band Lady Antebellum. My research uncovered this: [1] so given this is a current controversy we should probably add back in the pheasant and then create a dab page as to not take sides in the controversy. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and move Lady Antebellum to Lady A (band). There do appear to be more potential uses than the current pair of hot topics. BD2412 T 19:58, 21 June 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.

Archeway[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Archeway

1985 Cops from Hell Bombing.[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 21:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily POV title. Very unlikely search term. SummerPhDv2.0 04:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for WP:NPOV and also the full stop at the end that makes it highly unlikely to be used. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the dot, but not because of NPOV (we have WP:RNEUTRAL to consider). If we were talking about the no-dot form of this title, we might have to look and see whether any sources were using that name. Fortunately, the dot means we needn't bother. --NYKevin 08:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NYKevin (i.e. explicitly not for POV). I can't find any evidence that this exact phrase, with or without a dot, is in use anywhere other than this redirect. Unsurprisingly "Cops from hell" alone is a well used phrase that is not tied to this event and searching for "Cops from Hell" bombing "1985" also doesn't give results that are relevant (Punk/hardcore music and a film seem to be the primary topics). Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only usage of this term for this event I can find is at the enwiki article John Africa. Hog Farm (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've gone through the same thing as Hog Farm earlier. While this thing may have gotten a lot of pageviews yesterday, I'm assuming it's mostly because of this discussion, since it got zero prior to this since July 2015. It might just be better to do without this redirect. Regards, SONIC678 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the full stop. Considering creating the redirect without the full stop. --Micky (talk) 02:57, 23 June 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.

Occupy Paedophilia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Occupy Paedophilia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_21&oldid=965880346"