Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 10[edit]

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

Rapefugees[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 19:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Alt-right#Use of memes as plausible but non-neutral search terms. Use of the first is not limited to the Cologne incident; the second is especially "offensive or abusive" and should not be kept as is. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Switching to delete per Ardenter since these are not established terms used by RSes. 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Delete #3 as well, since it was added by Tamzin. 05:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Not popularly used. Non-neutral search terms are permitted only if established and used in multiple reliable sources. The redirects themselves are also racist/sexist and unencylopedic. Ardenter (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine #s1&3 to § Hardening attitudes towards migrants and refugees, where it's mentioned. (§ Local population no longer exists.) Refining is important here, because otherwise a reader has to read quite a bit of the article before they realize that the redirect doesn't imply an endorsement of the term. (Thus, read this part of the !vote as falling back to deletion rather than keeping.) Speedy delete #2 per R3 and/or common sense. Not mentioned in any other articles, and here doesn't seem to be any article on racist comparisons of Black people to monkeys, which is the only article that would be sufficently on-point to justify an {{r without mention}}. And I don't think this is a common enough search term to justify a redirect to wikt:chimp out. (And I think it's reasonable to hold racial slurs to a higher standard when it comes to soft-redirecting.) Even if a better target could be found, the existing target is offensive enough that it doesn't even belong in the page history, and if every revision of a page is WP:REVDEL-worthy it must be deleted. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, adding Rapefugees not welcome, and updating !vote accordingly. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Kablammo (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out the second one was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. As there are no !votes here against deleting it, I've tagged it for G5 speedy deletion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It has now been deleted. Striking through its listing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar title now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 14 § Chimpout. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:36, 17 June 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.

Dindu Nuffin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Dindu Nuffin

Thought Crimes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Thought Crimes

Wikipedia:NR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Wikipedia:NR

Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong[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. Nabla (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible title. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pageviews - it's obviously linked from somewhere. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it started as a WP:CFORK and was immediately redirected, and edit warred, and finally redirected, in a short time period right after creation. Thus it has almost always been a redirect with a bad name, that seems like a fake WP:SUBPAGE in mainspace. There's no base article Filipino Traditional Food -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the Filipino Traditional Food: prefix was an attempt at a namespace with Filipino traditional foods. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible title, and my guess is that the page views are from people finding it via the search bar and wondering: "What the hell?", then clicking on it to find out. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP4. Has a surprising number of page views, so deleting would probably break something that readers use. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per common sense. This is not plausible as a search term, especially due to the colon error. There are several explanations for page views that would disappear with the redirect, chief among them being a prominent suggestion when typing "Filipino" in the search bar. Deleting this redirect would enable search results where Bagoong would be a prominent entry, so I am unconvinced that deletion would be a hindrance to anybody trying to find Bagoong. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • being a prominent suggestion when typing "Filipino" in the search bar: I don't see such a search suggestion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That can easily be solved with a disambiguated redirect with proper formatting, a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} of the form: Bagoong (Filipino traditional food) / Bagoong (Philippine traditional food); if we actually need search redirects. The current title is for breaking Wikipedia naming by creating a private (pseudo)namespace, or from the era before Wikipedia had categories, when subpages and things that looked like subpages were used to group articles. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only way the "pseudo-namespace" part will break anything is if we one day install an extension that plans to use the "Filipino Traditional Food" namespace. The odds of that happening are indistinguishable from 0, so we can safely assume this will break nothing. The point about not showing up in search suggestions (which I also don't see by the way) is that page views are unlikely to be due to search suggestions like Tavix suggests. Combined with the lack of incoming links detailed below, the most reasonable conclusion is that there is some actively read external link that will break if we delete this, which WP:RFD#KEEP4 explicitly says to avoid. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • During an RfD is a bad time to test the search drop-down because adding the RfD tag reclassifies it from a redirect to an article (because the tag breaks the redirect function). This affects the algorithm used to determine what gets suggested. I can confirm that currently all it takes is "Filipino T" to show up, which is still pretty prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are the pages that Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong is linked from: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (because of this discussion), Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and its article alerts subpage (which has this discussion), Talk:Bagoong (the link there is in the season "Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong" listed at Redirects for discussion), User talk:Chicdat/log (I keep a log of all RfDs that I nominated), and this page. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not include incoming links from external sites. Page view metrics show that it is being viewed, and as you point out, it's unlikely those views are coming from internal links. That means the redirect is probably linked from an external site and is being used currently. Redirects are cheap so I don't see what value we get from breaking links. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am surprised at the number of views, but we can't discount the possibility that this is showing up in the search box and attracting some "what the..." clicks. Besides, I don't really see many views here. The recent spike corresponds with this RfD. As a second choice, move to something like Bagoong (food) or Bagoong (condiment) without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 20:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible title with most clicks probably stemming from the "What the hell is that?" thought process. File:Mattx8y pfp.png Mattx8y (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the page in question is linked from some external sites, then the fact that those sites linked to a redirect instead of the intended page is their problem. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking to redirects is perfectly fine. We do it here. It's not a problem, it's part of what redirects are designed to do. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 08:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a media title and not stylized correctly anyway. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAFT and ask a developer to create this namespace, per nom. dudhhrContribs 20:39, 14 June 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.

Personage[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 soft redirect to Wikt:personage. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should either be deleted or disambiguated or soft redirected to Wiktionary (or some other target?). A personage is (most often) a notable person.[1] A persona is something completely different. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't have an article on the concept of a notable person or important person, and are unlikely ever to, as the concept's too broad. Historical figure uses the term in passing, but only covers part of one of the three senses. Someone looking for person is unlikely to search for this instead. And dabbing person, historical figure, celebrity, character (arts), and a few other broad concepts doesn't seem worth it. But fortunately, Wiktionary can explain this term's meanings quite well for someone, and then they can come back here and search for whatever they meant, assuming they weren't just looking for a dictionary to begin with. Soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. The current target is inapposite, and should not have been selected. Celebrity is a possible target, but not quite identical.  --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 14 June 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.

Way.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. ✗plicit 03:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way.com appears to be run by a company not mentioned at the disambiguation page, nor do we appear to cover it anywhere else on Wikipedia. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 10 June 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.

Papal mandate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Papal mandate

Bakset[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 withdrawn. Consensus is pretty clear here. Might as well save someone else the trouble of closing this. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable transpositional error. There's no more WP:AFFINITY to this misspelling than to Absket, Bsaket, Basekt, or Baskte. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17 § Baketsball (closed as delete). Created by the same user, although prior to my previous nomination. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, very common typo. Definitely more common than the other terms the nominator mentioned. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baskte looks about as common as this one for the record, at ~800,000 gHits of which the vast majority refer to baskets. The others don't break 100,000, but it wouldn't be harmful to have them around. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like a WP:CHEAP simple transposition error redirect that already exists and does not need to be created, unlike the redlinked suggestions. Also unlike "Baketsball" , this is a simple transposition error of two adjacent letters, not two letters several letters apart -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this redirect got five hits only on the day it was created, otherwise it hasn't been used at all. {{R from misspelling}} is meant for plausible misspellings, i.e. words that people are likely to misspell or are actually frequently misspelled, like Portugese and Antartica. An error which on a standard keyboard requires striking a one-off character on entirely the wrong hand out of sequence is not very likely at all, as evidenced by the pageview stats. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:35, 10 June 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.

Cecil bob[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 06:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Simpsons, Cecil is Bob's brother, but is never known as "Cecil Bob". Creator has been indeffed for vandalism. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:35, 10 June 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.

20th Century Animation (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 delete. ✗plicit 06:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Anarchyte (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - speedy WP:G6 applies, as the edit note on its creation indicates this was a holding title for a round-robin move. There is also a copyvio in this page's history resulting from a cut-and-paste move. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One gets to the target before typing this. Unlikely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G6 round-robin move that wasn't tagged earlier dudhhrContribs 20:42, 14 June 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.

Jew killer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Jew killer

Bug scrub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17#Bug scrub

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_10&oldid=1030446111"