Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2020.

Indoor Sports Center Philipos Amiridis[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 18:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthi Arena was moved without discussion by Gnslps (talk · contribs) to this seemingly made-up name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The name I added is the translation of the greek one. The name Xanthi Arena is never used for this sports center but for this and as of this is misleading. Gnslps (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a translation of the greek title it is a resonable search term. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

John Pappas[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 16:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible alternate spelling. Also potentially confusing, as articles about people called John Pappas with two Ps have twice been deleted, and it's not implausible that a reader could be looking for those individuals. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: it seems that the first John Pappas AfD may have been for an article about the individual currently listed at John Papas. But his name doesn't seem to be spelt that way in any sources. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Plausible misspelling. What is to be gained by deleting redirects like this? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly concerned about the confusion with the recently-deleted article about a completely different subject. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the people known as John Pappas are notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia I don’t see the problem.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Misleading. I’m worried this could end up lacking a plausible target now since target article is being nominated for deletion at AfD. CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the article survived the nomination at AfD. This is certainly a plausible misspelling. CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 16 September 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.

Draft:The Pilot Newspaper[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 / retarget. There is not an affirmative consensus for the proposed retargeting, but with no editor supporting the status quo, a typical no-consensus close would be nonsensical and please no one. What this discussion does reveal is that, contrary to the comments of some, such a retargeting—and by extension, I think, how we deal with redirects from draft space more broadly—is not automatically uncontroversial. The language of RDRAFT could easily be read to conclude that (legitimate, R from move) redirects from draft space should never be deleted, but that is clearly against community consensus. I don't know what the next steps are, if any. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given how the draft namespace is set up, I'm not sure if this is the proper target for this redirect. From my understanding, redirects in the "Draft:" namespace, if they are {{R from move}} (see WP:RDRAFT), are supposed to target the page where the content formerly at this title is currently located. Well ... the title where the edit history of the content previously at this title is The Pilot Newspaper (North Carolina); however, the aforementioned title itself is a {{R from merge}} redirect to the page The Pilot (North Carolina newspaper) since the page formerly in the "Draft:" namespace was apparently a topic which already had an article. I never thought the "Draft:" namespace was intended to be used as a search utility for the page that best matches its title (the current target is the same target at The Pilot Newspaper, the title match in the "article" namespace), but rather as a way to track where the page and/or content formerly at this title ended up being. So, for this reasoning, I think this redirect should be retargeted to The Pilot (North Carolina newspaper) as a {{R avoided double redirect}} for The Pilot Newspaper (North Carolina), but since I'm not sure, especially considering that the location of the content formerly at this title is now hiding in the edit history of a title that is a redirect itself, I'd like to open this up for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've placed notifications on Wikipedia talk:Drafts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation soliciting potential input for this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this really need an RFD? Just redirect it as you've stated. I highly doubt anyone is going to notice or care. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's been a lot of activity on RfD recently regarding redirects in the "Draft:" namespace, so I consider it courteous to give the participants here a chance to weigh in. Also, as far as I know, there is no precedence for doing any of the steps I stated in my nomination statement, so this creates an opportunity to create a consensus-supported precedence ... since similar WP:IAR actions could be reverted on sight. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought was the same as Primefac's. I'm kind of puzzled why this needed to be discussed at all, but I support the proposed retargeting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah ... I'm not sure if anyone will have some contradicting idea of what to do with such redirects. I suppose if there are no concerns after the 7-day RfD period, I'll semi-WP:BOLD-ly add my proposed way of thinking on these to the section which WP:RDRAFT points. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete this. If there is no edit history of importance at the draftspace title, and it doesn't point to a mainspace article with an actual matching title, then it's more likely to cause confusion than to provide assistance to any reader. BD2412 T 01:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete When a draft is moved to mainspace, a redirect should remain. Normally this would be for the current location (after any later moves) of the content that was once in the draft. This allows editors who may have worked on or seen the draft to find it. Also, if a draft is found to be essentially a duplicate of an article by a different name (or an article section) it is normally converte4d to a redirect, to avoid misplaced effort on such a draft in future. Again, such redirects should not be deleted without some unusual good reason, which I do not see here. I would weakly support the change in target proposed above, but I don't feel strongly about ti. Leaving it unchanged will still lead any user to the content formerly in the draft, and the place to do any new work on it, which I would think is the point. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the confusion associated with the ambiguity. This is a good example why following WP:RDRAFT to the letter is a bad idea—especially given that RDRAFT gives zero explanation why keeping these redirects is advisable. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. WP:RDRAFT correctly links to the consensus against deleting draftspace redirects by default, but there's no identifiable use of the redirect and it seems actively unhelpful given the ambiguity, I think removing it is the correct plan in this particular instance. ~ mazca talk 13:07, 21 September 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:List of largest empires (Square Kilometeres)[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 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a redirect created when I reverted a move by a newbie, which created a cross-namespace redirect. This is not a plausible search term for this article and the article is clearly encyclopedic content intended for the mainspace. Kahastok talk 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was never intended to be a redirect, is highly unlikely to ever be useful to anybody as a redirect, and is an inappropriate use of the namespace. TompaDompa (talk) 10:09, 9 September 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.

Osmazome[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 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of this term on Wikipedia is at Molecular gastronomy, where it's mentioned in the context of food stock. I can imagine it has umami components, but that doesn't make this an appropriate redirect. BDD (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not even appear in the article. It should not redirect until it does. Strebe (talk) 22:59, 8 September 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.

Xian wei[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 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RLOTE, Japanese is the only other language I'd expect to see such redirects for. While umami is important in many other Asian cuisines, it's by no means limited to them. These seem to be Chinese, Filipino (x2), and Korean names for it. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not normally redirect non-English equivalents to article titles (unless they are standard usage), and these listed ones do not (and should not) appear in the article, so redirecting is just confusing. Strebe (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Aasim 21:05, 10 September 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.

Pencilmation[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 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pencilmation[1] needs its own page built. It is the biggest animated cartoon as well as one of the most-watched overall channels on YouTube [2]. Recognized as the third most viewed creator channel of YouTube 2019, with 2.8 billion clicks. Featured on YouTube Rewind (4:19): [3]. IMDB: [4].

signed, Legobiscuits talk

  • Comment: This is not the correct venue to suggest expanding this page into an article. With that being said, Pencilmation has not been covered by any reliable sources as far as I can tell, so an article would not be appropriate here. However, now that this redirect has been brought to RFD, I'm inclined to delete it as "Pencilmation" is not covered at all on the target page of Flash Animation, and I oppose the creation of an article here as a channel having a lot of subscribers cannot make up for lack of media coverage. See Most Subscribed YouTube Channels for some popular channels that don't have articles. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:16, 8 September 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.

Jesse Kempson[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The consensus in the talkpage discussion seems to have generally leant against including the name. Until that changes, there seems to be a strong consensus here to not have this redirect either. If the legal situation results in the talkpage consensus changing, then this may be reasonable to recreate. ~ mazca talk 13:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added or a proper justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems as if this is the name of the suspect? As for the reason that it was not mentioned, the suspect won name suppression in December 2018, the details can be read about here: [5]. (The daily mail also covered this story, but cannot be used as an RS). As for the details of the anonymity, I don't yet have the full story so I couldn't say. But that seems to be why the suspect's name doesn't appear in the article. Here is another useful article on the topic [6]. I do not know whether there could be legal implications for putting the name in the article. (Boy, isn't it great to be back to Wikipedia; let's dive into murder charges and whether or not to include the suspect's suppressed name in the article after it was illegally revealed by a third party) I have no opinion on either outcome, nor will I make one. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least until such time as the pertinent RfC on the Talk page of the target article is concluded. I note that the editor who created this redirect did so shortly after (s)he initiated that RfC, which seems kind of premature (if not WP:POINTY) in the circumstances. I think the redirect is not really appropriate until the RfC is resolved, at the earliest. Muzilon (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target. In fact due to the name suppression it should have been deleted without discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person has name suppression. Yes, I realise the name is out there and people can find it out but at this time, they are entitled to having their name off the article until the current legal matter is sorted and is name comes out officially. Really, this just seems like a targeted way to make a point and should be deleted now, let the RFC sort it out first. NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the same reasons I gave at Talk:Murder of Grace Millane#Name Supression RFC and as others give above. Nurg (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if his name is censored from the article and supposedly from the talk page (where it's now prominently displayed in a section heading), there's no reason for the redirect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, it seems incongruous having the name broadcast on the Talk page in the circumstances. Perhaps admin Rosguill would consider redacting it there. Muzilon (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, done. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 16 September 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.

Kwan Ka-wing[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. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the name of an officer involved in a shooting during the protests [7], but he isn't mentioned at this article. If his name is appropriate to add at the target I don't have any issue with the redirect standing, but with the status quo as is I think it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 8 September 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.

Bob Scanlon[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. Disambiguation between the two Bobs Scanlon can be handled once we have articles, not before. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name redirects to Boston Astros. Bob Scanlon is not mentioned in article. Redirect appears to have been an act of self-promotion. Hoping to move draft article to mainspace. Meanderingbartender (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:32, 13 September 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.

PopCulture.com[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 18:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or, outside of citations, in any other article. MJL has helpfully clarified the relationship between PopCulture.com and CBS Interactive, but between us we haven't been able to find any sources that would provide a basis for a mention of the former to be added to the target. If we can't add such a mention the redirect is not very useful and should probably be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination but also the argument to write the article first, provided it meets notability. Just like how we remove "notable people" in city lists if there's not an existing article for them. – The Grid (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I posted to the CBS Interactive talk page as well, but a primary source link between PopCulture.com and CBS Interactive is seen on the CBS Interactive page that lists their brands/sites: https://cbsinteractive.com/brands/ . This should be enough to justify a redirects existence, but a mention in the article might be tough without more info. As for WP:WTAF, I don't think that would work in this case if a site like Vulture.com, which is much more known doesn't have enough for an article. -2pou (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 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 newspapers on islands[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 redirect. Involved close, unanimous consensus to redirect to newly created relevant sections. signed, Rosguill talk 16:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


These titles seem like they would be better off as redlinks per WP:R#DELETE #10, rather than redirecting to an EL section. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Keep per WP:CHEAP. Most of these places have only 1 or 2 newspapers, and these papers do not yet have their own articles. The EL section at least has links to the papers' webpages, which should help to create these articles. Joofjoof (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have started creating article sections for these redirects to target (instead of an EL Section), such as Federated States of Micronesia#Newspapers.Joofjoof (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I have created new redirect targets for each of these articles. Joofjoof (talk) 09:18, 16 September 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.

Vernonia fasciculata[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 all but Vernonia angustifolia, which has been converted to an article. I'm not ignoring Hydronium Hydroxide's comment below, but Vernonia fasciculata, at least, is no longer listed as a synonym (the similar Vernonia cinerea is). Who will do such checking, and on what timeline? These may be recreated without prejudice if they're valid synonyms worth mentioning at the species level. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernonia fasciculata Michx. is an accepted species[8] and shouldn't be redirected to another taxon. It would be better as a red link. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some other ironweeds and some redirected accepted species that have several incoming links:
Vernonia angustifolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Vernonia balansae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Anabasis elatior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Artemisia capillaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Brosimum acutifolium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Erodium maritimum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Ferula jaeschkeana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Laportea interrupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Patrinia scabiosifolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Rhigozum obovatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
Welfia regia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accepted species at POWO
—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vernonia, where it's mentioned, tagging as {{R from species to genus}}. Remove what will be a WP:SELFRED from Vernonia. Although species are inherently notable, I doubt that anyone will be writing articles about all 1,000 in Vernonia anytime soon. Narky Blert (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link. Species should never redirect to the genus. In general: readers would be redirected to what's often just a single mention of the species, editors might get the impression that the species already has an article. Declangi (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the additional listings: Vernonia angustifolia and Vernonia balansae are a little different from the others. I believe the redirects were added in good faith. Vernonia angustifolia D.Don ex Hook. & Arn. is synonym of Vernonanthura nudiflora per POWO. But Vernonia angustifolia Michx. is an accepted species. Vernonia angustifolia should be a red link, but there should also be a set index article, probably entitled Vernonia angustifolia (disambiguation), listing the two names.
Laportea is a good example of why species should not redirect to the genus: would the real articles there please stand up? Declangi (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SIAs and DABs are different things. An SIA should not have a (disambiguation) qualifier; nor should a DAB page at the basename. A DAB page having the (disambiguation) qualifier containing a primary topic and one other topic falls foul of WP:ONEOTHER.
The redirects Vernonia angustifolia (Michx.) and Vernonia angustifolia (D.Don ex Hook. & Arn.) exist. They would be valid entries on a DAB page titled Vernonia angustifolia categorised into Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages. Narky Blert (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
id:Vernonia angustifolia and vi:Vernonia angustifolia exist, both about Vernonia angustifolia (Michx.). They could be usefully {{ill}} linked in Vernonia. Opening a can of worms, species:Vernonia angustifolia is a redirect to species:Vernonanthura nudiflora. Narky Blert (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"species:Vernonia angustifolia is a redirect to species:Vernonanthura nudiflora" - thanks, fixed! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink 'em all. Redirects from species to genus are worse than useless. Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that the case? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @J947: Because a redirect will cause the reader to assume that it is not a valid species, or that it otherwise doesn't deserve an article, and many casual readers don't know how to step into a redirect and create an article. A redlink can appear on pages, and redlinks encourage article creation. If a casual user clicks on a redlink, they will see a message about creating an article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 11 redirects added by Hyperik after the discussion started were not tagged with {{Rfd2}}. At this point, all the aforementioned redirects have been tagged and their creators and targets notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points:
    • Yes, redirects from species to the genus are not only useless to readers, they are actively unhelpful, since they give the impression that the species article exists, when it doesn't. Species are inherently notable, and WP:REDLINK is clear on red links.
    • Some of these need more careful analysis than a combined listing and discussion here. For example, there are two species with the name "Vernonia angustifolia": Vernonia angustifolia D.Don ex Hook. & Arn. which is a synonym of Vernonanthura nudiflora (Less.) H.Rob., and Vernonia angustifolia Michx., which is an accepted species. The correct solution in this case, which I shall be bold and implement, is to create a stub article with a hatnote.
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 8 September 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.

Ecola State Park Rookery[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 18:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a stub article created in 2009 that was immediately blanked and redirected for lack of notability. It really should have gone through AFD at that time or been properly patrolled. Currently, I cannot find any information regarding a "Rookery" in Ecola State Park. I request consensus for deletion of this redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that there is a Rookery in the state park that goes by this name, echoing the nom's sentiments. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No source that is showing the name "Rookery" located in the Park's and Article's name. StaleGuy22 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those were wild years back in the aughts. We didn't have "proper patrolling". Blanking and redirecting was a fine solution at the time if I recall. I think I was irked at the article's bogosity but perhaps rather than prodding the thing I was hoping the article's creator would do something useful. Snowball Delete (ping me and I'll do the honors) and a trout slap for me, except I just now made a damn good effort at finding something. I can Google anything and I got nada. Sea lions just live there like they do all up and down the coast--there's nothing special about a rookery being there. Valfontis (talk) 08:46, 11 September 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.

Peter Shelton[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This currently goes to Peter L. Shelton, an architect tagged with notability concern but with an NYT obit. Based on a Google search, page length, etc., the primary topic looks like it's actually Peter Shelton (sculptor). I think we may want to move the latter to "Peter Shelton" and turn the former into a hatnote. Alternatively, we could make it a disambiguation page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems as if Peter shelton currently targets the sculptor, but it's worth noting that the architect is receiving double the pageviews when compared to the sculptor, and very few of those are derived from the redirect. I'm currently inclined to keep it as is, and also redirect the lowercase variant to the architect. I should also add that pagelength and google search results alone are not enough to determine which is the primary topic, so Skdb I would ask that you clarify what other criteria you are using in the "etc." above, thank you. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect) the tiny number of page views for either, along with the fact that Peter Shelton (sculptor) gets more views than Peter L. Shelton on some days, suggests there's no WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I agree there is no clear primary topic, in which case a disambigatuon page should be created at Peter Shelton regardless of whether hatnotes are used to link between the two pages. I would also argue moving Peter L. Shelton to Peter Shelton (architect) would make sense. It seems per WP:NCBIO that use of middle initials purely for disambiguation purposes is not advised, so if both are commonly known as "Peter Shelton" without their middle initials, than the parenthetical disambiguation for both is appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 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_September_8&oldid=979701434"