Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2021.

Orange hypergiant[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 20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RW Cephei is not the only orange hypergiant; Category:K-type hypergiants currently includes four articles. This redirect could be retargeted to point to that category, or just deleted. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be deleted, I guess. The only reason I redirected the article since it was used to describe RW Cephei in the namesake star's article (though now the description seems to be removed). We could just state RW Cephei as a K-type hypergiant instead and delete this article?PNSMurthy (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably does make sense as a search term though, so it might be better to retarget it to Category:K-type hypergiants. I've seen redirects from article namespace to category namespace, though I can't think of an example at the moment. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm okay. But I doubt people searching for the term would be satisfied by the names of four stars. Perhaps we should expand the article, and state the four stars as examples?PNSMurthy (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not appropriate for this to point to a specific star, and I'm not too keen on it pointing to a category instead of a prose article either. Either turn into an article, or delete to encourage article creation per WP:REDLINK. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is there not just a list of different stellar classes that could include this star type and serve as a redirect target? BlackholeWA (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we either redirect the article to the category, or expand it. Either way we'll be giving information for the viewer (to be honest though; i doubt anyone would be too interested in researching upon orange hypergiants on WP).PNSMurthy (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I don't think there's a good single target for this at the moment outside of the aforementioned cross-namespace redirect to a poorly-maintained category. "Orange", when describing a star, almost universally describes spectral class K, and the main issue here seems to be that such orange hypergiant stars are extremely uncommon. Most academic research seems to class these class K "orange" hypergiants as cooler variants of class G, "yellow" hypergiants, of which there also aren't very many - if you look at the examples at Yellow hypergiant, you'll see the same short list that are in Category:K-type hypergiants along with a few other ones. "Orange hypergiant" just doesn't seem to be an actual term that's used in academic papers on these stars, RW Cephei and the few other examples are treated as outliers among either yellow hypergiants or red supergiants. ~ mazca talk 18:20, 16 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.

Retouching[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 Retouch. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Could equally refer to Conservation and restoration of paintings. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Eureka Lott. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to existing disambiguation page at Retouch and add/update links there as appropriate. - Eureka Lott 01:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Eureka Lott. Félix An (talk) 03:09, 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.

Opioid crisis[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 Opioid epidemic by unanimous agreement. ~ mazca talk 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general term that doesn't necessarily refer to the United States. I recommend redirecting to Opioid epidemic instead. CrazyBoy826 19:10, 9 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.

Kim ki chung[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. Thmazing's rationale seems more like an argument to create an article on the subject, not to redirect to a place with no information about the subject. A WP:REDLINK deletion allows that, although per 61.239.39.90, the article should be created at the correctly formatted title. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a Google search found no relevant results.CrazyBoy826 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you didn't get any Google results. There are many. This is a significant 20th-century Korean painter. Since we don't have an article on the painter it makes sense to redirect to the closest thing we do have. KEEP Thmazing (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we don't have an article or any information in English Wikipedia on the painter, we should delete this since we have nowhere to send readers who are looking for any information about him. Additionally, if we do eventually have an article about him, it should be at a properly capitalised title like Kim Ki-chung. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:25, 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.

Alta Vista, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Alta Vista, California

Most liked video[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Most liked video

Thunderbird locomotive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Thunderbird locomotive

Capitol insurrection[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. Withdrawn by nominator: WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least a touch ambiguous - there have been many insurrections in many capitols throughout history. Hog Farm Bacon 06:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC) It's clear this ain't going anywhere. Might as well close those so the redirect can function normally again. Hog Farm Bacon 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's ambiguous. I'm not sure what the best remedy is, however. Deleting the page might make it harder to find relevant content. I'm also not sure if a disambiguation page would be appropriate. Personally, I would lean towards the later option, however. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retarget somewhere like List of coups and coup attempts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague for the current target, and List of coups and coup attempts is barely an improvement ("Capitol" is vague if it's not referring to USA). power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created it and there is nothing ambiguous about it. So Many News channels are referring to the incident with this exact name "Capitol insurrection", so it is expected that people will look it up on wikipedia. As expected, everyday close to 70 people are searching for this keyword. "Capitol" is as specific as it can be. "Capitol insurrection" is pretty clear about what it will be. By deleting this redirect you will make it harder to find this article for those close to 70 people everyday. As of now this is the correct target following WP:PRIMARYTARGET. Keep this redirect target for now and review it for a retarget in 6 months or so. There is no point in deleting a helpful redirect. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If seems likely that someone searching for "Capitol Insurrection" would be looking for information on the 2021 storming of the Capitol Bravetheif (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the nominator or anyone else can point to any other examples of insurrections in capitols (not capitals) that are covered in Wikipedia articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority of people typing it in will be after the 2021 article. Maybe we can return to the deletion discussion in the future when it's no longer in the news. Also agree with Arms & Hearts's point. — Czello 12:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least currently the events of a few days ago are very much what almost everyone (if not everyone) is looking for, so we should take them directly there. If there are other events that could be referred to by this term which have Wikipedia articles then they can be linked in a hatnote (via a disambiguation page if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name of the article should just be United States Capitol Insurrection (perhaps with 2021 at the front). This half pregnant redirect is pointless. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macktheknifeau:, your comment is on the wrong place. If you want the article to be renamed, raise your comment on the article talk page. I don't understand what your phrase "half pregnant redirect" even means. But you must know that News Media are using the term "Capitol insurrection" If you want to create a redirect 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection, by all means go ahead, start it. I dont support that redirect as I dont expect users searching for that term. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has become a common name for this event in the media as Walrus Ji mentions. If someone else demonstrates that there are a large number of other "Capitol"s which have experienced insurrections, maybe we can create a disambiguation page here, but in the meantime the redirect should remain. ThirdDolphin (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a disambiguation page. Term is too vague but *is* being searched for. Aliza250 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aliza250: Which other events should be listed on that disambiguation page? Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to have been mistaken. Google Ngram cannot find a single use of the phrase in US or British English between 1500 and 2019. Aliza250 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on Aliza250's findings. We can revisit later. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given that this is too broad of a name, and the WP:COMMONNAME is "Storming of the Capitol" as decided on the main article talk page. Redirects are not a replacement for the search tool, just an aid in cases where it isn't easily searchable already -- see: Wikipedia:Redirects_are_costly#Some_unneeded_redirects. SpurriousCorrelation 20:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a perfectly valid and common name for what happened. If it's too broad, then it should be a disambiguation page - though I'm struggling to think of other examples. The 1814 event wasn't an insurrection, as it was done by a foreign power. The best I can think of are in works of fiction, though aren't in common usage. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this is a common current alternative phrase to refer to the target article. If there are any other events it could refer to, a {{redirects here}} hatnote can handle them but at this point, I cannot see any other potential page it could refer to. Regards SoWhy 11:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't find any evidence that any of the disorderly goings-on on the Capitoline Hill (it or the Roman Senate House has commonly been called "the Capitol" in English; see e.g. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar), such as the riot in 100 BC, has ever been called an insurrection (even though that is what that one was). (@Arms & Hearts: Got one for you.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. What other capitols have had a full on insurrection? Insurrection is very strong and rare. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. 'Insurrection' has quickly become the agreed-upon term. In fact, the main page's name should be Capitol insurrection. Thornsie (talk) 20:51, 12 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.

Wikipedia:CHURNALISM[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Wikipedia:CHURNALISM

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_9&oldid=1001191120"