Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2021.

Camp Augustine[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 Retargeted to Scouting in Nebraska#Overland Trails Council. It was targeted to the wrong place originally and has since been fixed. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target makes no mention of the article that is redirected to it. They appear to be mostly unrelated other than being related to Scouting Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was targeted to the wrong place on the page. It should have been Scouting_in_Nebraska#Overland_Trails_Council, which has now been corrected. There is even a citation:"Camp Augustine 75th Anniversary Celebration". Overland Trails Council. --evrik (talk) 23:50, 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.

Abandoned Mansion (album)[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 Abandoned Mansion. Unnecessary disambiguation (non-admin closure) ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It was created at the same time as the article Abandoned Mansion when both redirected to the article about the band Dr. Dog, which created the album. The article Abandoned Mansion now contains content about the album rather than being just a redirect. Having a separate entry with the disambiguating text "(album)" in the title is redundant and confusing to users searching for the album. In addition, by redirecting to the article about the band rather than the article about the album makes it difficult for users to find the correct content. For these reasons, and since there are no articles that link to this redirect, I would suggest that the redirect be deleted. Aogaeru4 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Abandoned Mansion as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 61.239. Redirects like these are useful, since someone might mistakenly think that the target page is ambiguous (a canonical example here being Jupiter, which is about the planet but could just as well be the title of a disambiguation page). Furthermore, they provide a slightly more future-proof title to link to: Even if a new article is written about something titled "Abandoned Mansion", or even if the Abandoned Mansion article is merged into a discography page or something like that, Abandoned Mansion (album) will still point to the correct place. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:32, 18 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.

Gay lifestyle[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 Anti-LGBT rhetoric#Homosexuality as a lifestyle with hatnotes to LGBT culture at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to Gay agenda Anti-LGBT rhetoric § Homosexuality as a lifestyle per WP:R#ASTONISH. "Gay/homosexual lifestyle" is a derogatory term used to imply that homosexuality is a choice rather than innate. As such it has little relation to LGBT culture per se. This was discussed previously at RfD with no consensus; however, I think it's a fairly straightforward choice (ahem) given the lack of any mention of the term at the current target. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC) edited 20:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Any existing links that are (AGF) unknowingly using derogatory terms should be changed. Links that are contextualized with the terms' derogatory meaning would be better targeted to Gay agendaAnti-LGBT rhetoric. Tweaking existing links is the way to avoid WP:ASTONISHment, which some !voters discussed in the prior RfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) - striking and underlined insertion 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment: "Gay/homosexual lifestyle" is a derogatory term used to imply that homosexuality is a choice rather than innate. Evidence please? I can't speak for anyone else, but when I hear "gay lifestyle," I think of a collection of lifestyle choices that are common among homosexual men. The word "lifestyle" seems to me more closely related to culture than political agenda; lifestyle refers to patterns of behavior among an individual, culture to the same patterns among a group. A political agenda is the policies a particular group promotes, so retargetting these as proposed seems to be redirecting to a destination further from the phrase's actual meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for the links. I'll be honest, judging from the tone and contents of the linked pieces, it looks to me like labeling "gay lifestyle" as pejorative is part of a broad attempt to identify and isolate a specific in-group and out-group by fostering and propagating a specific speech community, in part for political reasons. The Washington Post article you linked is a very clear example of that, with Amy Coney Barrett being heavily criticized as hostile to the LGBT not because she had said or done anything overtly anti-LGBT, but because she failed to use (and probably wasn't even aware of) the particular vocabulary of this new speech community. But enough socio-political analysis out of me; the real issue is the target.
    As I see it, being pejorative (if it is pejorative; I'll admit I'm not inclined to concede that it truly is without seeing scholarly academic sources saying so) doesn't necessarily change the target; we have {{Rs from non-neutral}}, after all. Someone searching "gay lifestyle" is looking to find information on the "gay way of life"; GLAAD objects to this phrase that: "There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle." Well, obviously, and I rather doubt anyone meant to imply that. But if we expand this unrealistic conception that some people are said to have, and acknowledge that the gay community is full of unique people, while also acknowledging that there are some customs and behaviors that significant portions of those people share, we've now outlined the concept of gay culture. So I suspect that anyone searching "gay lifestyle" is looking for information on gay culture (i.e., the lifestyle choices common among gays), and if anything would be astonishing to that person, it would be instead arriving at an article about an anti-gay speech community.
    Of course, gay culture doesn't redirect to LGBT culture: it redirects to Gay men#Gay men's contemporary art and culture with a hatnote to LGBT culture. So I'm thinking I'll vote to retarget Gay lifestyle there and keep Homosexual lifestyle where it is, adding {{R from non-neutral}} to both. But I'm quite open to further discussion of this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of mainstream/scholarly sources describing the term(s) as pejorative or more broadly anti-LGBT:

    "[According to GLAAD:] The phrases gay lifestyle, homosexual lifestyle and transgender lifestyle are used to denigrate LGBTQ people, suggesting that their sexual orientation and/or gender identity is a choice and therefore can and should be 'cured'"[1]

    "Lifestyle: A negative term used by anti-LGBTQ+ people to describe the lives of people who are LGBTQ (i.e. the 'gay lifestyle') ... it implies that being LGBTQ+ is a choice"[2]

    "Many opponents of LGBTQ civil rights refer to the 'gay lifestyle' ... Using the term 'lifestyle' only to refer to one's choice of sexual partners is a form of stigmatization"[3]

    The older phrases sexual preference and alternative lifestyle are offensive because they imply that sexual orientation is a choice. According to some conservative religious groups, the homosexual lifestyle is a choice that can (and should) be 'cured'"[4]

    "[P]eople with anti-gay attitudes often portray homosexuality as a lifestyle or choice that people make—and by implication a bad choice."[5]

    "According to [opponents of LGBT rights], homosexuality is a depraved, immoral and decadent 'lifestyle', not an immutable sexual orientation."[6]

    "The right has consistently perpetuated two myths about lesbians and gays: One, queers have 'lifestyles' rather than 'lives'—the implications of 'lifestyle' include self-indulgence—and two, homosexuality is a 'choice'"[7]

    "In keeping with this notion [that homosexuality is a choice], many conservative Christians operate homosexual therapy clinics intended to help and keep individuals out of the 'lifestyle.'"[8]

    Leaving conjecture aside, the sourcing is quite strong to include both "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual lifestyle" under anti-LGBT rhetoric, and I have yet to come across any RSes that suggest otherwise for the terms' current usage. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Kanigel, Rachele (2019). The Diversity Style Guide. John Wiley & Sons. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-119-05515-0.
  2. ^ Braquet, Donna (2019). "LGBTQ+ Terminology, Scenarios, and Strategies, and Relevant Web-based Resources in the 21st Century". In Mehra, Bharat (ed.). LGBTQ+ Librarianship in the 21st Century: Emerging Directions of Advocacy and Community Engagement in Diverse Information Environments. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-78756-473-2.
  3. ^ Eliason, Michele J.; Chinn, Peggy L. (2018). "The Deadly Effects of Stigma". LGBTQ Cultures: What Health Care Professionals Need to Know About Sexual and Gender Diversity. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-1-4963-9461-3.
  4. ^ Stollznow, Karen (2020). On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-108-79178-6.
  5. ^ LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. p. x. ISBN 978-0-19-029737-4.
  6. ^ Mutz, Larry (Spring 2006). "A Fairy Tale: The Myth of the Homosexual Lifestyle in Anti-Gay-and-Lesbian Rhetoric". Women's Rights Law Reporter. 27 (2): 69. ISSN 0085-8269.
  7. ^ Signorile, Michelangelo (1993). Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power. Random House. p. 238. ISBN 978-0-679-41309-7.
  8. ^ Herman, Didi (1997). The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right. University of Chicago Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-226-32764-8.
  • Retarget to either page mentioned in nom. Both are less surprising and more fitting than the current redirect. Jno.skinner (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hatnote: {{redirect|Gay lifestyle|the culture of gay people|LGBT culture}}. While yes, the term can be used to refer to "the lifestyle of gay people", and I've heard it that way on occasion, it's far more often used in a pejorative sense, which is backed up by RS as seen above. That's true even if some editors personally disagree with those RS. As for {{r non-neutral}}, yes, such redirects are valid, but when possible they should point to articles that discuss their non-neutrality, not articles about the topic they refer to. The canonical example here being Crooked Hillary, which points to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump § Crooked Hillary, not to the Hillary Clinton article itself. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the nomination statement that there is no mention of "lifestyle' at the target. The Criticism section has: Some consider the very notion of "separatism", or a group lifestyle, alienating ..., although it is a citation needed, since long. - Jay (Talk) 03:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there is no source cited, that sentence could be referring to a kind of separatist, communal society à la the Furies Collective, which is not unique to or characteristic of LGBT culture in general, or the very notion of the "gay lifestyle" described above, which falls under the umbrella of anti-LGBT rhetoric. The latter certainly would seem alienating, but not because of anything to do with LGBT culture itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hatnote per Tamzin. It is not immediately obvious this is a derogatory term so the hatnote will deal with any innocent searches for the term. Polyamorph (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. As the sources provided above demonstrate, these terms aren't generally used to refer to LGBT culture, but as a pejorative term for homosexuality itself. Anti-LGBT rhetoric is the appropriate place to cover that meaning.--Trystan (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with a hatnote per Tamzin and Polyamorph. While it can be used to refer to LGBTQ+ culture this is not the contemporary primary meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with the suggested hatnote. ¶ Btw, "heterosexual lifestyle" redirects to Heterosexuality. It seems that "heterosexual lifestyle" should not redirect at all, but perhaps there's a reason? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. The few sources I've seen seem to be using that term as a conscious satire of the idea of a "homosexual lifestyle". I doubt Heterosexuality is an ideal target. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hatnote per Tamzin. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:59, 24 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.

Connectivity queriy[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 20:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, but a longstanding one. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible typo for query. No other redirect on Wikipedia has this word in it. - Jay (Talk) 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Low pageviews (~10/year) mean that it's unlikely that this unusual typo is being used anywhere. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have created a redirect at Connectivity query. The typo is unlikely to be ever used on Wikipedia and unlikely to be searched. HappyMouse2 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HappyMouse2 (talk) 00:03, 24 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.

Static field[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 11:12, 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.

Screen mask[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 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 10:41, 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.

Wagn (software)[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 10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete? This redirect doesn't make any sense. See Talk:List_of_wiki_software#Link_to_Wagn for someone else who noticed this. Alternatively redirect back to List_of_wiki_software#Ruby-based which is where I found it. The Wagn project has apparently been renamed Decko. Alex Muller 08:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, it doesn't make any sense. Searches for "Fred G. Meyer" + "Decko" or "Wagn" come up with nothing. He's in a different field. The only remote possibility is that his philanthropy contributed to that software, but I can't find any mention of it. As a side note, I've removed it from the List of wiki software#Ruby on the basis of WP:NN and WP:WTAF peterl (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect has an extensive history that helps explain things. Wagn was apparently the software used by a Connectipedia. It looks like this topic has a history of COI editing; I would guess someone related to Connectipedia paid people to create lots of articles about it. Anyway, Wagn was never remotely notable, so it was merged into Connectipedia; Connectipedia wasn't notable either, so it was redirected to Fred G. Meyer, whose namesake trust fund apparently bankrolled the creation of both the software and the wiki that used it. Connectipedia and a couple of related directs were deleted at RfD a couple of months ago in a discussion with no participation. I suppose we could always add a mention of the project to the current target section, but I'm not sure the topic is notable enough to merit one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks @Compassionate727 peterl (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for explaining! Alex Muller 17:21, 18 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.

Bug scrub[edit]

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

Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia[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 List of active separatist movements in Europe#Moldova. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria and Gagauzia had their separate conflicts. They are not directly related, so this redirect is pointless. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in restoring the unsourced article and having an article about two merged conflicts one of which already has its own page (Transnistria conflict). And there's really no point either in this redirect, only in Wikipedia I've heard these two conflicts being referred to collectively, I doubt it is useful. What if someone made a redirect like Regionalist and independentist movements in the Aosta Valley, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, the Province of Trieste, Lombardy, Northern Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, South Tyrol and Veneto and just redirected it to List of active separatist movements in Europe#Italy? Would it be kept? It would undoubtedly be see as an absurd redirect with no use. I regard this redirect as the same. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. If this were a brand-new creation, I'd probably !vote to delete per Super Dromaeosaurus, but this was its own article from 2005 to 2008. The 16,288 pageviews that this has gotten since 2015 strongly suggest that people are still clicking on old links to this from when it was an article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Plausible search term (see e.g. [3]). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 19 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.

Marcus Jannes[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 10:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any relationship between Marcus and Brandon Vedas, other than the fact that both died due to drug overdose and livestreamed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:50, 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.

Denver Wolverines[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 04:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this RFD for C87d98b10. His rationale for this redirect deletion is: "my rationale is that the team in question was proposed (at least according to the original article) to be a development team for an amateur league a decade ago that never materialised. It basically never went any further than an idea as far as it's possible to tell. It was only redirected to the USARL article on the basis that this article had a mention of it, but I had to remove this as the source provided was a deadlink and I was unable to locate any other RS's to verify that this club even existed as an idea and isn't pure OR. I hope that helps, many thanks for your assistance.

Same rationale for Seattle Force, Dallas Dragons, Orange County Outlaws and Houston Hornets, which have all been de-PRODed by another user. c87d98b10"

Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as per my nom. None of these clubs have sourced coverage at the target article and there's no evidence any of these got any further than a thought over a decade ago. c87d98b10 01:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all due to a lack of mention. I have bundled in the rest of the redirects, based on the list of "developing" teams listed at the target when these were created. -- Tavix (talk) 13:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_17&oldid=1138583164"