Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2021.

Atlanta <Sport> Team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16

Langauge[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 to delete, clear consensus to "harden". Any questions about potential bots and their activities are beyond the purview of RfD. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is controversial but here we are: this redirect needs to be hardened. For one, this is the only mainspace redirect that uses {{soft redirect}} (any other mainspace soft redirects are routinely cleared out, like this one or Godsy's list), and it messes a lot of things up. For one, the system classifies this as an article and not a redirect because it is missing the #REDIRECT magic text (eg: I had to switch from AfD to RfD on the discussion venue when nominating this via Twinkle). As a consequence of this, it has not been placed in {{R from misspelling}} where it belongs. Finally, and most obviously, having this as a soft redirect obstructs users of this redirect from directly going where they are obviously going by forcing them to click through the redirect. On the other hand, the claim that having this as a hard redirect obstructs searches is nonsense rare. After I hardened the redirect yesterday, I conducted a few searches trying to figure out how this redirect obstructed searches, but I got the specific language article I wanted in the first result every time. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and replace with ordinary ("hard") redirect. There's no good reason to make an exception for this one case: redirects within Wikipedia use hard redirects, basta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harden per Tavix's incontrovertible logic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harden per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong harden. –MarioMario456 17:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harden per nom. Absolutely no reason or benefit to anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tavix, which searches did you try? – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: what is your evidence that this redirect, unlike any others, obstructs (in some unspecified manner) some (unspecified) searches? Thryduulf (talk) 18:17 (UTC)
    To be fair, Uanfala's example below is valid, but it does seem like this would only work for languages mentioned at the Language article, which would only be a handful of languages (and much, much less than 100,000). I'll strike my "nonsense" comment and replace with "rare". Still, this is not a unique situation with language typos and the soft redirect hack is much more harmful than creating whichever redirects would be affected by this (or perhaps reporting it to Phabricator to see if there is a software solution). -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the search string is "A B" and the engine finds a match for A in the article text and for B within the redirects to that article, then it will return that article in the search results. And because it has returned at least one "correct" result, it will not attempt to autocorrect and fix the typo. Yes, this one redirect only obscures searches for the few dozen languages mentioned in Language. Did anyone think we may just create redirects for those few dozen languages? Of course, these redirects will then start getting in the way of searches for any of the languages mentioned in those articles, which will mean we'd need to create redirects for them as well, which in turn... etc. For this to work, we'd need to create redirects for each page with "language" in the title, hence the huge number quoted below.
    And yes, this is a much wider issue: languages are probably affected to a greater extent because natural disambiguation is very common in article titles and hence likely in reader searches as well. But a similar situation will obtain for all search phrases that contain a specific and a generic part ("German languge" "Avatar flim", "Georgia, amerika" etc.) I guess these situations can be fixed in the search engine (although I doubt this can be done without compromising existing functionality). However, I believe the right solution is not to have this type of redirects in the first place - otherwise, to make this work consistently we'd need to increase the number of existing redirects by an order of magnitude (which will be a maintentance nightmare), and if on the other hand it's not working consistently, then it's bad because we're providing means for readers that only work sporadically, and that can frustrate reader searches regardless of the behaviour of the search engine. – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the strong consensus for redirects with this misspelling from November and December 2019, and from two weeks ago. Softening this redirect was merely a quick fix to prevent it from obstructing searches, but I agree that the most sustainable solution is to delete it – as was done with all the others – because it's unnecessary and harmful. The redirect is unnecessary because this misspelling is already handled natively by the search engine: if the redirect is deleted, the right article will be on the top of the search suggestions. It's harmful because it obstructs searches for any of the languages mentioned in the target article: this is explained at length in the November discussion linked above, but I'll reiterate in brief. If a reader makes a typo in the term "language" when searching for a particular language, the search engine will "autocorrect" and display the desired articles: see for example the search results for Gamilaraay lagnuage (see how Gamilaraay language is at the top of the list?). For this to work, it's crucial that a redirect at Lagnuage does not exist. If a redirect is created, then it would pre-empt the autocorrect behaviour, and the search engine will display a single result: for Language. You can observe this effect in the search results for Gamilaraay languge (noting the existence of the redirect Languge). The problem with this last search is that there isn't even a hint that the article about the Gamilaraay language is there, so a reader is likely to assume it doesn't exist. – Uanfala (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this was discussed at length with Wugapodes in the November 2019 discussion, but I agree with Wug's conclusion. If a given typo does not show up in searches for any variety of reasons, simply create the redirect(s) which would resolve the search. -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out in the discussion of two weeks ago, "simply" creating each redirect will involve the creation of somewhere around 100,000 redirects for each typo of "language", which is not sustainable. – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I mentioned there that I am strongly in favor of such a bot run. For example, a bot run created typo redirects for "untied" → "united". -- Tavix (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I would also support such a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I support it as well, per the previous discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          What would a bot accomplish though? As Uanfala pointed out, the search engine will handle typos for you. It does not make sense to manually correct those typos by creating many thousands of redirects (any of which could be vandalised). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          The advantage of a bot run would be that anybody typing "FOO langauge" would automatically be redirected to the article for "FOO language" without having to worry about being at the mercy of the search engine. Uanfala actually pointed out that the search engine doesn't always work the way we want it to, which was the whole point in trying to hack this redirect in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          The search engine only works incorrectly if there are redirects for some but not all langauges (like currently with "languge"). One solution is indeed to create redirects for them all but that just seems so wasteful to me when creating none would work too. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Not everybody uses the search engine, it is only one of many ways to find Wikipedia content, most of which do not have search suggestions, automatic corrections, etc (other than underscores/spaces and capitalisation of the first character). Any page on Wikipedia can be vandalised, we don't make things unnecessarily harder or more inconvenient for readers to find the content they are looking for on the off-chance that a redirect might be vandalised. The likelihood of vandalism also loosely correlates with prominence of the page and how controversial the topic is, redirects are generally not visible unless you use that specific search term or go specifically looking, accordingly redirects are relatively infrequent vandalism targets. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Okay fair point about vandalism; that's indeed not an issue. But what exactly do you mean with other ways to find Wikipedia content? As far as I know almost everyone comes here through Google search, Wikipedia's search bar or someone else copy-pasting the link. Some people type the URL manually but when you do that you know that you're prone to typos. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          There are many more methods of finding content than just that, for example, external search engines, the internal search engine, typing the URL, URL bar searching, bookmarks, links (from other Wikipedia pages or elsewhere), copy and pasting URLs, external search apps, mobile apps, etc. Just because you know you are prone to typos does not mean that we should be deliberately less helpful to those who make them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          All of those fall under one of the three categories I mentioned before. Pretty much any search engine will correct typos for you. Copy-pasting URLs means you already arrived at the desired page before (unless the page got moved). If we really want to be super helfpul for everyone who types the URL manually and cannot figure out they've made a mistake, then we might as well create redirects from every typo you could possibly make, for every single page. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'm happy to run a bot to create whatever redirects are required to resolve this (rather odd) problem, if it turns out that mass-creating redirects is the answer. I've not looked at the issue myself in enough depth to offer a useful comment (yet). firefly ( t · c ) 14:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I applied a workaround a while back so it would stop cluttering the pseudo maintenance list. Honestly, I'm fairly neutral between hardening and deletion; I merely oppose soft redirection. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that workaround but I was curious how or if that was useful. I was using Category:Wikipedia soft redirects as my maintenance list and this redirect still appears there. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. 'gamilaraay languge' example is pretty devastating. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion this redirect gets used multiple times per day. Are we seriously considering making it harder for readers to navigate the site? For what? Typos? We should be making things easier for readers, not harder, and we can save them a click by just making more redirects. Instead we've decided to make it harder for readers to get to their glaringly obvious destination. And now we want to double down on it, instead of using the technology we have for this exact situation and use all the time.
    Ah, the reader typed English langauge. I have no idea what page they might want to go to so better show them search results and delete pages until the search works! Come on now. I'd find this funny if people weren't so serious. Instead of trying to figure out how to improve search results for typos consider that we can just take readers where they want to go, if only we would stop navel gazing for a second and follow WP:RPURPOSE. I'm fine with hardening the redirect under discussion if it's causing actual (as opposed to hypothetical) maintenance problems, which seems to be the case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the redirect is this: it saves a click for readers looking for the article Language, but completely cuts off access for readers looking for several dozen other articles. The harms of completely blocking access – even if it were to just a single article – outweigh the benefit of saving a click. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harden Just slap it with {{R from misspelling}}. Nardog (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that some of those involved in the past discussions were pinged, in the interest of balance I'm pinging all the others too: Kwamikagami, LaundryPizza03, J947, Shhhnotsoloud, ~riley, Rosguill, Zxcvbnm, ComplexRational, Airbornemihir, AngusWOOF, Austronesier, Johnuniq, Woodstone, Jason Quinn, Debresser, and Djm-leighpark. – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had wanted to do that, but hadn't gotten around to going all the way through the previous discussions yet. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or harden, and if delete, do the same for other rd'd typos of the word. I don't really see what the difference is. In Uanfala's example of "Gamilaraay languge", where there is a hard link, the response of the search engine is "Did you mean: gamilaraay language", which is all the reader needs. I get that kind of message all the time (I make a lot of typos), and don't conclude from it that the article doesn't exist! I just think, "doh! typo" and click on the correct spelling. Yeah, it's an extra click, but so what? We're balancing an extra click for the many possibilities of "X langauge/languge/lagnauge/etc." against an extra click for the main Language article. Half a dozen of one, six of the other. — kwami (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone puts [[langauge]] in wikitext, a red link should be shown to highlight the typo for editors. If the search engine needs fixing, it should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no end to this kind of redirect. A search engine will find the right spelling on its own. −Woodstone (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. The Gamilaraay languge example is pretty telling and suggests that sometimes we must ignore rules in order to maximize reader convenience. I do think the initial soft redirection was a bit WP:POINTy but if that is what was required to illustrate the point and bring this to discussion, then so be it. feminist (+) 06:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I replied to others before in this discussion, but never listed my !vote. If hardened, I'd support the proposal for a bot to create all such redirects to not obstruct searches, although this seems a bit useless to me. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:25, 10 July 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.

Jamie Spears[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. If there are ongoing concerns about the father's notability, those need to be addressed at a new AfD. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be disambiguated to include both James Parnell Spears (also known as "Jamie") and Jamie Lynn Spears. A hatnote is currently in place on the Jamie Lynn article, but it's still a bit confusing, and it would be best to create a DAB page at this title. CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB. Two-entry DABs aren't ideal, but when you have two members of a family with the same name (or very similar ones), that seems one of those cases where there's no better option. For instance, even if W. and H.W. were the only people named George Bush, that title would still be a DAB. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Parnell Spears was made a month after an AfD for Jamie Spears, father of Britney, closed as redirect and salt. Does this article actually have consensus to exist? Vaticidalprophet 04:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previous user notes, the notability/existence of the article James Parnell Spears is questionable: it was created at that article name to evade the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Spears to redirect and salt. —Lowellian (reply) 14:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lowellian and Vaticidalprophet: If you have doubts that an article should exist you need to discuss that article at an appropriate venue (talk page, WikiProject page, AfD) not RfD. While the article exists it is not inherently unsuitable as a redirect target and/or dab page entry. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether that article should exist and the previous AFD and its decision are directly relevant to this RFD and needed to be mentioned to provide important context for the situation. —Lowellian (reply) 17:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No it isn't. If you think it should be deleted you need to nominate it for deletion at AfD, if it is nominated then this RfD can be procedurally closed pending the outcome of that - if it is deleted then the RfD is moot, if it is kept then it can be nominated again so the redirect can be discussed based on that consensus. RfD is not the appropriate forum to discuss article content. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is making a mountain out of a molehill. No one was having an AFD discussion here. Mentioning a previous AFD in a single-line comment to provide context for other users so they can be more fully informed about the situation is not remotely close to an actual AFD discussion. —Lowellian (reply) 23:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that I reached out to Daniel, who closed the AfD. He does not "have a strong view either way" as to whether there was a procedural issue with the article being created, and notes that context makes the AfD perhaps less binding than most. I agree with Lowellian that this is a perfectly fine thing to discuss here briefly, as potential issues with a target article can affect editors' !votes. For instance, it's fairly common to note major content issues with a target article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The situation is dealt with by a hatnote which is not at all confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB, with the recent conservator events in the past week. James Spears is now being commonly referred to as Jamie Spears, overridingcontesting Jamie Lynn Spears as primary topic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57586405 The daughter has been using Jamie Lynn Spears as common name / stage name for her television appearances. If she had used Jamie Spears for these, then she should retain primary topic. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC) updated 20:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jamie Lynn Spears is a notable figure in her own right (albeit less so in recent years). This is not overridden by recent interest in her father, based around a recent public interest in Britney's conservatorship. There is no reason to think this public obsession with James Spears and his conservatorship is anything more than a fad ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB It might be that the father should not have a separate article, but that can be decided at AfD. Even if the article on him is deleted, though, I'd argue this should still be a disambiguation page between Jamie Lynn Spears and either the relevant section of the Britney Spears article or Free Britney movement. Note that in the AfD that created this redirect, there was support for both Britney Spears and Jamie Lynn Spears as redirect targets, so I think a dab page could have been a valid result of the AfD. And given the difference in fame between the sisters, I think it's very plausible that among those who type "Jamie Spears", at least as many will be looking for information on the conservatorship stuff as for the sister, both in present and in future. Finally, while a hatnote reduces confusion by a lot, it does not eliminate it. PJvanMill)talk( 18:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rephrase confusing hatnote. Keep it simple like "Jamie Spears" redirects here. For Britney Spears' father, see James Parnell Spears. Remove mention of conservator and the fact that he is Jamie Lynn's father too. Jay (Talk) 18:51, 10 July 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.

Moravian University[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Moravian University

Asanda[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! 22:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Asanda" redirects to Asanda Jezile. There can be some other notable people with name "Asanda" other than Asanda Jezile. There is also a village in India with this name. So, better to remove this redirection to avoid confusion. Shinjoya (talk) 18:00, 6 July 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.

2014 in Somaliland[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. ✗plicit 13:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These should all point either at the Somalia articles or at the Somali Civil War timelines. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - the creator of all of these redirects was banned for disruptively pushing a pro-Somaliland POV wherein they repeatedly claimed that all of Somalia was actually Somaliland, and these titles are more evidence of that POV. If there are articles on events in Somaliland specifically they would be at these titles, but linking these to a list of events in Somalia is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and D1, D3, D5, and D10 probably apply as well. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Ivanvector's squirrel has the names back to front, but essentially they are correct that these are confusing redirects. I would say that even without the political aspects, a "in X" pointing to a civil war page instead of something more broad may not be the best idea. CMD (talk) 03:52, 7 July 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.

Yeah, but you didn’t[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. ✗plicit 13:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This phrase is apparently used to describe modern art, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that make a connection between the Egg of Columbus and the phrase. An anonymous user made that connection at the article for The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living in January, but that appears to be a bit of WP:OR and probably should be reverted. - Eureka Lott 00:50, 8 July 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.

Dan Hamill[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Dan Hamill

Public Ownership Party (United States)[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 Socialist Party of Minnesota. ✗plicit 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; suggest retargeting to Socialist Party of Minnesota, where Public Ownership Party of Minnesota is mentioned as a former name. I can't find evidence of any other party ever having had this name, and all but one of the links to this redirect do indeed refer to the Minnesota party. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 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.

Sam Bungey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Sam Bungey

River Edge[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. ✗plicit 10:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to River's Edge (disambiguation). I don't think that this generic term should redirect to a town in New Jersey. 122.60.71.65 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 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.

Opera in the Italian style[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 Italian opera. ✗plicit 07:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this redirects to "Agrippina". ★Trekker (talk) 06:48, 6 July 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.

Dishonest press[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Dishonest press

Guac merchant[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. ✗plicit 07:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a dead meme of some sort, not mentioned in target article and searching is just bringing up a bunch of references to some video titled You Can't Stump the Trump Volume 17 (Goodbye, Guac Merchant). Doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 6 July 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.

Guancha[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 , defaulting to disambiguate as a 'midpoint' outcome that is acceptable to most participants. Questions of primary topic or linking can be discussed again at any time. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This currently redirects as an obscure 19th century alternative name of a sea sponge, but is also a significant Chinese news site (see d:Q17500632 and w:zh:观察者网), which is certainly the primary topic. Delete to encourage enwiki creation and interlanguage links. Vaticidalprophet 14:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Guancha is a valid synonym for Clathrina and isn't obscure: Enwiki has several redirects of the form Guancha foo which redirect to Clathrina foo (see All pages with titles beginning with Guancha). The Chinese website can't be a primary topic if we don't have an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things can absolutely be primary topics without articles; a major news website in the largest country on earth > a sea sponge's synonym. Currently it's impossible to even passingly acknowledge the news website in articles, because {{ill}} treats redirects as articles and so the bot removes interlanguage links for titles that are redirects on enwiki, even in cases like this where they're blatantly unrelated subjects. Vaticidalprophet 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vaticidalprophet: Primary "topic" does rather infer "topic with a substantive mention in the encyclopedia". If the current lack of mention is concerning you, you can fix that, but something that isn't there can't take priority over something that is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While deletion would make it so that readers searching for the sponge don't find it immediately, the same will be the case when an article is eventually created. With an article, we solve that problem with a hatnote. When there isn't an article, we solve that problem with the search engine. I've just created Guancha (genus), which will show up as a suggestion in the search bar and hopefully guide readers in the search results. Given that readers will have little more difficulty finding the Clathrina article than they would if we had an article on the news site, I'd say this is a relatively rare case where the interest in encouraging creation outweighs the navigational concerns. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:PRIMARYRED (The existing article is not automatically the primary topic). The WP:DABRL-compliant entry for the news site on such a dab page would be something like "Guancha.cn, a Chinese news site founded by Eric X. Li". Also worth noting that there is a separate dab page La Guancha; not sure whether that should be merged with the proposed Guancha disambiguation page or not. As a second choice, I agree with nom & Tamzin that deletion would serve readers better than the current situation. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate is a good compromise. I emphatically do not support delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see it as a good compromise. I've drafted a DAB per 61.239's suggestion, including a "See also" to La Guancha. If there's evidence that any of the places there are ever called just "Guancha", we could move the reference out of "See also" and into the main list as "Any of several places called La Guancha". If guancha.cn is turned blue, there should probably be a discussion then of whether to move that to Guancha, but for now I think this is a good enough state of affairs. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:18, 7 July 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.

舊金山國際機場[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. ✗plicit 07:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Chinese-speaking population in San Francisco significant enough for this to be a worthwhile WP:FORRED? feminist (+) 14:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Chinatown, San Francisco is described as the largest Chinese enclave outside Asia, so it's not impossible the answer to your question is "yes". Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, 舊金山 is a red link right now, and the city itself probably has higher affinity to the Chinese language than its airport. feminist (+) 04:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible FORRED for a city with a large Chinese-speaking population. One could speculate that a Chinese speaker is more likely to know the English (well, Spanish, I guess) name of San Francisco than the English name of San Francisco International Airport, but I also think it would be reasonable to create 舊金山 regardless. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this term isn't mentioned on the target article and there is no particular reason to add it, then we should not have a redirect for it. Regardless of the size or historical significance of the Chinese-speaking population in the area, the Chinese translation doesn't belong in parentheses in the lede section of San Francisco International Airport as it would for a specifically Chinese-American topic like the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, and nor do I see any any particular encyclopedic reason the Chinese name (nor the Spanish name, nor the Miwok name) would need to be discussed in the body. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete San Francisco may have a large Chinese-speaking population, but there is no connection between the Chinese language and the San Francisco airport specifically. Mlb96 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We are not a dictionary and do not need the majority of foreign language redirects like this one. Aasim (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, specifically Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. There is a presumption that there should not be foreign lang redirects, and there is no real connection in this instance. This is a clear rule - otherwise, we are stuck saying 'does this place have a high enough x-speaking population'? Here we can easily just say: no. Otherwise, EVERY location in San Fran would suddenly warrant a Chinese redirect and then other major cities with large Chinese populations. There's no sensible cutoff so we should just follow the rule, which is pretty clear. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:38, 9 July 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.

Toll Tag[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Toll Tag

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_6&oldid=1119792877"