Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 16, 2021.

Beryllate[edit]

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

Langauge, again[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, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This particular misspelling has been deleted before (1, 2). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous decisions. I added the misspelled category. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mainspace redirects. I maintain that "langauge" is a plausible typo, thus these are useful {{R from typo}}s. Similarly, langauge should be hardened. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'd prefer if a bot just created all langauge redirects for article titles with language like with dash redirects. It strikes me as a much more aggreeable solution than the other two options which inconvenience readers. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one way to solve the underlying problem, but it will create others because of the disproportionate increase in the maintenance burden. I'd rather we solve the issue by deleting a handful of redirects than by creating, and looking after, tens of thousands more. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it is a maintenance burden, especially when compared to the current situation. Right now what has to happen is that as soon as a mainspace langauge redirect is created, it must be immediately RfD'd or otherwise boatloads of readers making the misspelling will only see that redirect in the search results. Having someone constantly monitor the existence of langauge redirects is tough and time-consuming, and nominating it at RfD wastes editors' time and creates, well, a maintenance burden.
        To the contrary, the bot solution really works forever. Setting up the bot wouldn't be hard to do – it's not like it's complicated or unprecedented – and redirects don't really bear a maintenance burden in the same way other pages do. Just stick in {{R from misspelling}} and {{R unprintworthy}} on the redirect, and a link to the BRFA in the edit summary. If it's an {{R from avoided double redirect}} to create, stick that one on as well as the properly-spelled redirect's rcats. And you're done. It's not like it wastes the bot's time.
        And even if the maintenance looks roughly equal (I don't think so), with the bot solution readers are helped to a greater extent by being directly pointed to the page readers want to go. Really, the maintenance burden comes second in the thought process. Readers first. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 08:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The harm from any one redirect isn't great – it only affects searches related to other languages mentioned at the target. But more importantly, I don't think you realise the scale of the task. There are around 15,000 pages with "language" in the title, and the larger chunk among them are about natural languages. These typically have a well-developed network of incoming redirects for various alternative names, and if my experience is representative, the average number of redirects with "language" is something like seven per article. For reliable results, the bot would need to create redirects for each of those, which will almost double the total number of redirects in this topic area. So whenever a language article is split, or a new one created, we'd need to re-point not five, but ten redirects. And why stop here? "Langauge" is only one of several plausible misspellings of the word, and if we tried to accommodate them as well, we'd need to increase the total number of redirects by at least an order of magnitude. Yes, I imagine it may be annoying to see an RfD like this come up, but I'd rather have you guys expressing you displeasure once a year, than have a massive increase in what is probably the most tedious part of the everyday job here. Especially given that all these redirects won't even be needed – the search engine already handles the misspellings well enough. And even this one RfD isn't needed in the first place – these redirects were created in error and could have been handled by WP:G6 on the spot. – Uanfala (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I personally think that controlling 75,000 redirects by bot is perfectly fine, but I understand why you don't think so. What I really don't want is that most of the time a few of these redirects are floating around clogging up the search results and helping few, as is the case now. That's the worst of both worlds. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be strongly in favor of such a bot run. The annual RfD for this "issue" is far more burdensome than a maintenance burden for harmless typo redirects for a typo that is *clearly* plausible—if not common. -- Tavix (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the robust consensus from 2019: these redirects obstruct searches. I don't see a reason to keep any particular one: they're artefacts of titling mistakes, which were quickly corrected (with the exception of the Asmat one, which went unnoticed for six weeks in early 2020, but even that has no incoming links here and it's virtually unused with barely one view each month). – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: doesn't making redirects unprintworthy stop them from showing up in the search results? Isn't that a solution? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:53, 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.

Steve Cutler (wrestler)[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 Jaxson Ryker#The Forgotten Sons (2017–2020). ✗plicit 04:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. No reason to redirect a wrestler to his current girlfriend. The article doesn't cover the wrestler career and, if they drop the relationship, the redirect will be obsolete. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation, unless there is a better target, which I can't find. The current target has no mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jaxson Ryker where mentioned extensively as part of the Forgotten Sons stable. Tag R with possibilities and allow for drafts if he has enough of a career on his own. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:16, 16 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.

Interdenominational[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 23#Interdenominational

The Breakfast Show (Triple J)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 23#The Breakfast Show (Triple J)

Zoe Colletti[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 23#Zoe Colletti

Fascism in India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Fascism in India

Siege of Thionville (1870)[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 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page title has its own article on the Vietnamese wiki on the specific battle and the article this redirect goes to doesn't explain much of the battle anyways. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag it for translation from Vietnamese. Jay (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I confused it with the 1639 siege. Delete per Compassionate. - Jay (Talk) 17:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have asked the editors at WikiProject Military history whether they might be able to suggest a better target. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:39, 8 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) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I´m not sure why there´s a RfD, seems to me the current redirect provides the most detail available for now and the OP can simply overwrite it with proper article content once there is some, with no need for prior discussion or approval. And for the records there also is a french-wiki article about it, might ease the translation. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GELongstreet: It doesn't seem to me that the current target discusses the 1870 siege of Thionsville at all, just a 1792 siege and then the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. Because redlinks encourage article creation, it is common to delete redirects that point to targets that don't contain any useful information on the subject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, mixed that up with the info from the German Thionville page, sorry. However I thought that the OP is soon going to make a translation of the Vietnamese page. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GELongstreet: I'm not sure where you got the impression that he was planning on doing that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from his recent creation of numerous battle articles of that war by translating Vietnamese wiki articles, of course. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GELongstreet: Fair enough, although I suspect that if the nominator had intended to do such a thing, he wouldn't have bothered nominating this for deletion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_16&oldid=1030407281"