Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2021.

J&K, Pakistan[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 Azad Kashmir. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Azad Kashmir, which is described as the Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Merged nominations with same rationale and target page. CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. Someone searching for this may be looking for the area called Jammu and Kashmir (which is administered by India) or they might be looking for the Pakistani-administered portion of Kashmir. Either way the Current status and political divisions section will explain any misconceptions they might have and link to whichever article it is they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions per Thryduulf. Place Clichy (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Azad Kashmir per nom, because the administrative region is officially known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and therefore it is the only place by the name of "Jammu and Kashmir" within Pakistan (which is what someone searching "Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan" or the like would most likely be looking for). I disagree with retargeting this particular set of redirects to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, because again, in the context of Pakistan specifically, while an unqualified "Kashmir" may be ambiguous, it's pretty clear what "Jammu and Kashmir" refers to. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Azad Kashmir as explained above by M Imtiaz. Redirecting to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions would be inaccurate as Gilgit-Baltistan is separate from the "Jammu and Kashmir" region. In the Pakistani context, the portion of J&K under Pakistani administration only refers to Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator blocked for disruptive editing. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 10 January 2021 (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.

Province of Kashmir[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 Kashmir#Current status and political divisions and delete PoK - Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kashmir, consistent with Pakistani-held Kashmir. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 10 January 2021 (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.

Reeee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Reeee

The War of The Worlds (2005 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 keep. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film is just called "War of the Worlds", and no film was released under the redirect's name in 2005. There is a 1953 film of the same name as the redirect, but that's the only "The War of the Worlds (film)" that has an article. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it isn't hurting anyone and it might be helping some. Redirects don't have to be semantically or gramatically correct, don't even have to be spelled correctly. Lithopsian (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and unambiguous. Just tag it as a {{r from incorrect name}} and move on. - Eureka Lott 21:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lithopsian and EurekaLott. It's a pretty plausible search term that's taken from its source materal. Regards, SONIC678 21:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sonic678: How is adding another "The" at the beginning plausible? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seventyfiveyears: It's because the book on which it's based is titled The War of the Worlds, and that can also reasonably be misquoted as "War of the Worlds." Conversely, there are other adaptations of the book titled just War of the Worlds, but someone could misquote them as "The War of the Worlds," another perfectly reasonable (if not fully accurate) way to refer to the adaptation. As Lithopsian says above, it doesn't really matter in cases like this if there's another "the" at the beginning, as both of these ways to write the title are equally plausible, even if one may not exactly be correct. Does that answer your question? Regards, SONIC678 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per Lithsopian and Sonic678. This is both harmless and a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly plausible redirect. Pointless nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2021 (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.

User:Nehme1499 redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy close. Per WP:EARLY. Tagged as G7 instead and already deleted. No further discussions required. (non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from userpage sandbox; not needed. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I tagged those pages as WP:G7 as you were the creator of those redirects and that you wanted them to be deleted. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (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.

Thinking errors[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 and add a hatnote at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly mentioned at the target. A Google Scholar search does not suggest that this particular type of cognitive error is uniquely associated with the term "thinking error". Top results include mathematical and philosophical mistakes alongside the cognitive-behavioral context. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, thank you for the message. A Google search gives the following definition of thinking errors before listing results: Thinking errors are faulty patterns of thinking that are self-defeating. They occur when the things you are thinking do not match up with reality. This is sometimes also referred to as cognitive distortions.(www.klearminds.com) The top 20 results all link to information about cognitive distortion. 10 of the top 20 results specifically mention "cognitive distortion" in the link title or summary. It is clear that the term "thinking error" is commonly used for "cognitive distortion" therefore Wikipedia users should be able to search for the term "thinking errors" and find cognitive distortion. If there is a strong argument that the term is ambiguous, I recommend "thinking errors" link to a disambiguation page rather than deleting it. Jared.h.wood (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While researching this discussion, I reviewed the Fallacy article. It has a redirect template at the top. Perhaps we could add something like that to the top of Cognitive distortion. Here is an example of what could be added.
"Thinking errors" redirects here. For faulty reasoning, see Fallacy.
This solution has the added benefit of explicitly mentioning "thinking errors" on the target. Jared.h.wood (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2021 (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.

Wp-admin[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can also mean Wikipedia Admin 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: sample.com/wp-admin is the URL of the admin dashboard for sites running WordPress. It has no association with Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. – robertsky (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... given that it is usually associated with WordPress. But - is there any way to know how many times the redirect has been used in the past, say, year? (Does Wikipedia have such stats?) I would be surprised to see it getting many redirects. It might be one to just delete if not many people are using it. - Dyork (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, click the "stats" link in the nomination header. This is getting a much larger number of views than I was expecting - 78 in the 30 days prior to the nomination, 3878 in 2020 - for a redirect that is a massive number and the very uneven distribution makes me very curious. The peaks don't correspond well to page views of the target [1] and there is no edit history for the redirect that would explain it either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. Additionally this is an extremely well used redirect so deletion should very much be off the cards. A hatnote can be added to Wikipedia administrators if desired (I'm neutral on that). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a highly-used redirect, and I oppose adding a hatnote without any evidence that the spelling "wp-admin" has been used to refer to Wikipedia administrators. feminist (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2021 (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.

Below wholesale[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 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned nor defined anywhere at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 10 January 2021 (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.

森美兰[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, there's a lot of Chinese in Negeri Sembilan, but there aren't that many, and definitely not enought use to warrant a redirect. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 21% Chinese is enough to have a redirect. CrazyBoy826 19:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant enough population. 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs)
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.

Art and Cultural Center[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 Cultural center. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPRIMARY: could as easily refer to Art and Culture Center of Hollywood, many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 10 January 2021 (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.

Nathaniel Curtis[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 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the result of the following AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Curtis, which cut an article down to a redirect. However, the name does not appear to be anywhere in the article, and so is of no use as a search term.

There is a draft, Draft:Nathaniel Curtis, in review for an actor. The draft does not appear to pass acting notability. But if the draft is improved and accepted, this leaves a question of what the hatnote on the article can say in sending a reader to a person not in an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2021 (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.

Tariq ((given name))[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 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are the result of page moves to make their target pages' titles more in line with naming conventions, and were part of a WP:TRAINWRECKed nomination on June 7 last year. Aside from the double parenthesis, the Nick Graham one is kinda ambiguous, as there's also two Australian footballers by that name. I'd suggest deleting those unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 10 January 2021 (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/2021_January_10&oldid=1001394960"