Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2020.

Apriskah[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) 22:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Was also a one-off artist on Monstercat, but no sources exist for inclusion in List of Monstercat artists. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is mentioned in the target article's list but it is not prominent enough a mention to be helpful to a reader searching for the topic. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:26, 6 December 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.

Work work work work work work work[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 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that this redirect be Deleted as pure nonsense. In particular, it meets the criteria listed under 5. and 8. of WP:R#DELETE.

  • Criterion 5: it makes no sense (since it contains an arbitrary number of repetitions of the word "work", which number is different from the actual number of repetitions in the actual subject of the target page and also different from the number of repetitions in any other page which might be confused with this target).
  • Criterion 8: Redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, and is unlikely to be useful. For instance, how does this redirect title "Work work work work work work work" make it easier to find the target article than, for example "Work work work work work work" or "Work work work work work work work work," which are the same except having a different number of repetitions of the word "work?" Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This redirect is not useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Work work work work work" also redirects to "Work (Rihanna song)", so I'm adding it here as well. I'm not very sure about either keeping or deleting the redirects. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOTLYRICS violation. Chompy Ace 01:14, 30 November 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.

Tactical unity[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) 22:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While these terms are mentioned at the target as a tenet of Platformism, Scholar and internet searches suggest that the phrases have broad use outside of anarchism and is not primarily associated with this tendency. I think that deletion and letting internal search results stand is probably the best solution here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. They are more often used as a general descriptor than in relation to this specific concept. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:23, 6 December 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.

Merkin Vineyards and Caduceus Cellars[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 Caduceus Cellars. The delete rationale that Merkin Vineyards exists is invalid as that page is also a redirect to Caduceus Cellars. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may be better targeted to Caduceus Cellars, where Merkin Vineyards already redirects, rather than the article about the winemaker for both. Alternatively, it is unclear what value this redirect has and deletion could be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom's main argument. If these are both operations of the same party, it seems likely that this particular phrase has been used in public marketing, wine artiles, or whatever, and would be a reasonable search term. It seems especially appropriate since the one business anme already redirects to the other and both will presumably be covered at that article. It seems more useful to send it there than to the personal bio.
    I get a fuzzy feeling about this one. I wonder, does the winery have a thatch roof, and carpet that matches the drapes? And are grape vines technically bushes? I'll stop now before this turns into a hairy situation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon further investigation, this page was the original article that was blanked and redirected to its current target, and subsequently a new article was created at Caduceus Cellars. Caduceus Cellars and Merkin Vineyards, one referring to the winery and one to the vineyards, are really just two different labels from the same winery/winemaker (wines are sold under both names), though unclear which is the primary name. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY (ish) since both Merkin Vineyards and Caduceus Cellars exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Caduceus Cellars and Merkin Vineyards also redirects to Caduceus Cellars. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Caduceus Cellars. XY isn't a problem when there's a place that logically covers both topics, which is the case here. It seems unlikely that we'd ever have separate articles on the winery (i.e., the business) and the vineyard (i.e., the land). --BDD (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be clear, these are two different labels from the same company/winemaker (I struck out misleading text in my earlier comment). Caduceus does seem to be primary label, though oddly they operate tasting rooms under both names (with wines from both labels available at each), so it's definitely a little hazy, but I agree having separate pages for each would be highly unlikely to ever occur. We could discuss whether the page should carry both names, but that is an issue for requested moves. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was not clear to me. For now, I think we have it right with Caduceus Cellars as the title (compare caduceus.org), but we might want to change that in the future depending on how they brand. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 3 December 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.

Top 100 Animated Films[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 20:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Animation page does not list the top animated films. I think this redirect should be deleted, although another option would be to retarget to List of highest-grossing animated films ―NK1406 talk•contribs 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have many lists of animated films, but no clear target for this. - Eureka Lott 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a list doesn't exist on the target page. Such lists do exist on the web, but they are all subjective depending on source. --Janke | Talk 20:08, 28 November 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.

Commando(Bengali 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete malformed and miscapitalized disambiguator UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:03, 28 November 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.

Sikh holocaust of 1746[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 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious NPOV violation. This was the name of the target article based off some random blogs. See the other re-direct Sikh holocaust of 1762 as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. Both articles have included the "holocaust" part of the title for years at a time, and these terms can be found in use. NPOV does not apply to redirects as these terms are not necessarily used on the articles, NPOV applies only to content. Per WP:RNEUTRAL non-neutral redirects are specifically allowed. Clearly someone searching these terms will find what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A7V2, WP:RNEUTRAL states that "if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms." These terms are not used in mainstream reliable sources, the articles had minimal activity and were left unattended for years, and the page name moved to this title in between. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate: I'm not going to pretend this isn't a contentious issue, so of course I'm not going to weigh in on it too much, but clearly the back and forth moving of these pages means some consider "Sikh holocaust" to be an appropriate name for these articles, rightly or wrongly, which to me already makes this a valid search term. WP:R#KEEP number 4 applies here too, as there are 10s of internal to both redirects and since they were the article titles for a long time, probably a lot of external links too. Finally, I just think these are valid search terms. Apart from mention on many Sikh websites, including translating "Ghallughara" as "Holocaust", the term is used in other sources such as [1]. I'm just not seeing a reason to delete, and I see a few reasons to keep. A7V2 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is contentious, I'm not denying that either and that probably is the reason why there are so many issues with pages such as these. Is that a reason to avoiding dealing with such topics altogether? That just results in degradation of areas on this site which are not in line with its core policies.

In any case, there were a handful internal links from other articles which I have replaced. Although, one observation, they were either in the "see also" section or were a form of inappriopiate wikilinking (e.g: "Sikh holocaust of ...." instead of Mughal-Sikh Wars) or a very specific line, "Sikh holocaust of 1762 took place under the Muslim provincial government based at Lahore to wipe out the Sikhs, with 30,000 Sikhs being killed, an offensive that had begun with the Mughals, with the Sikh holocaust of 1746" which was copy pasted over multiple articles, which in my opinion just points towards someone attempting to POV push and getting overlooked in the process.

I'm surprised this term was reproduced in an Indian Express article, and yes there are multiple blog sites and wikis where it is being used, some of which are likely because of circular reasons. I don't think that constitutes as an exemption for using non-neutral redirects, we should not be validating POV pushing spam like this just because they managed to get away with it for a long period of time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is evidence of external use, as well as the historic internal links, which means this is a very plausible search term and WP:RNEUTRAL applies. The existence or otherwise of this (or any other) redirect does not validate any term as being correct, incorrect, neutral or anything else other than useful for some reason. It is the job of the target article to educate readers about the topic in a neutral manner. Deleting redirects to it from non-neutral terms does nothing except make it harder for readers encountering the term to find that neutral information - so indirectly furthering the spread of bias. The absence of a redirect would also make it more likely that someone would think we do not have an article on the subject and so start one, almost certainly less complete and potentially less neutral - something that benefits nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 5 December 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.

Sikh holocaust of 1762[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 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious NPOV violation. This was the name of the target article based off some random blogs. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. Both articles have included the "holocaust" part of the title for years at a time, and these terms can be found in use. NPOV does not apply to redirects as these terms are not necessarily used on the articles, NPOV applies only to content. Per WP:RNEUTRAL non-neutral redirects are specifically allowed. Clearly someone searching these terms will find what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged this and the above redirect with {{R from non-neutral name}}. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my rationale at the related discussion. Thryduulf (talk)
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.

Fraternity ring[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 with no prejudice against recreation if content about this term is added at either Ring (jewelry) or Fraternity. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on Wikipedia about these. I recommend either adding it to the table list at Ring (jewellery)#Styles or deleting. BDD (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree but am not sure which. Fraternities are not a major thing in my country; is there likely to be enough to say about a fraternity ring to justify someone creating a page somewhere down the line? If so delete to encourage page creation. Should probably have a Ring (jewellery)#Styles entry regardless. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth a relist since no one seems quite sure what to do with this yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget It seems best to retarget to Ring (jewellery)#Styles, as suggested. Most collegiate and 'adult' fraternities have them (sales will produce licensing revenue). There is no specific style, but these are similar to class rings, championship rings or signet rings. Jax MN (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there is currently no mention at Ring (jewellery)#Styles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not mentioned at either potential target. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 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.

Fraternity paddle[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 Fraternities and sororities with no prejudice against further discussion. A strict vote count would have Hazing#Methods come out ahead of Fraternities and sororities, but the balance of arguments favors Fraternities and sororities. A lack of support for status quo means that simply closing as no consensus would be unsatisfactory. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and I don't see a great alternative target. Fraternities and sororities has one mention of paddling, and North American fraternity and sorority housing mentions paddles in a decorative context. Paddle (spanking) might be the best target, if we'd be ok with that. It's actually a previous target... --BDD (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hazing#Methods perhaps? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hazing#Methods. I think of all the choices (most of which are interlinked in one way or another), this is the best. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might work too. The problem with both Hazing#Methods and Paddle (spanking) is that they only cover one aspect of paddles. Even fraternities without hazing commonly use paddles as symbols. Perhaps there's only so much we could say about that, though. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Fraternity. This is much like the trope of a "goat" in a Masonic initiation: a joke. Paddles are a memento given to a mentoring Big Brother by a new member; they are decorative, for wall art. I've never come across anyone who has actually used one in any hazing sense. Not even among the oldest alumni I've met. Jax MN (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they used outside of collegiate fraternities? If not, a "keep" is inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fraternity versions are not used in hazing nor any form of punishment or fetish, so Hazing#Methods and Paddle (spanking) aren't a fit. Nor are they used outside of American collegiate fraternities. Members buy them in kit form, to be assembled and painted as wall decor. Hence "Pledge Paddle" has diverged from the corporal punishment type of paddle. Leave it as a redirect to Fraternity. Jax MN (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the page for American collegiate fraternities is Fraternities and sororities. Fraternity is about something broader. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm curious if an article can be created on the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 28 November 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_November_28&oldid=992754030"