Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2021.

First Second Gentleman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#First Second Gentleman

Lab leak[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 laboratory biosecurity incidents. In addition to winning a late majority, the addition of a hatnote at the redirect target obviates the main concern of editors in favor of disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting this to the contemporary meaning of this (whether it be the misinformation or the investigations page) seems like WP:RECENTISM to me, and is also a possible WP:SURPRISE, as a reader searching for the term might just be looking for a generic outlook on that. I suggest a retarget to Laboratory safetyList of laboratory biosecurity incidents (as suggested below), although I see it doesn't appear to have an explicit mention of this anywhere (though that would be easily fixed by regular editing, methinks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating vote to Disambig. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with a redirect either to laboratory safety or list of lab biosecurity incidents. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Lab Leak" is a phrase being used in news media as a shorthand for "Covid-19 Wuhan lab leak theory" or equivalent. The redirection was set up recently for this purpose and it would be very rare for anyone to search for the term in any other context. If it redirected to List of laboratory biosecurity incidents which does not mention the covid-19 case then that would clearly be WP:SURPRISE, not the reverse. Adding this theory to that page would be inappropriate since all the other incidents listed there are verified. I think it is a notable phrase in recent news and may remain so in future. Redirecting to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 seems like the most helpful option for people seeking related information. I prefer that redirection to remain, but second best alternative would be to delete it entirely rather than redirect to a page which does not have what is most likely being looked for. Weburbia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree more if the redirect was from "lab leak theory". I feel like "lab leak" alone is broader than that. Given the suggestions either redirect could be surprising, perhaps a disambiguation page makes more sense,? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of laboratory biosecurity incidents, with a hatnote to the COVID discussion. The general concept is much more likely to be a useful target in the long term. Or put another way: Hijack doesn't redirect to September 11 attacks, despite that being perhaps the most prominent example of a hijacking in the last 20 years. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would agree with User:Weburbia in that it would be a WP:SURPRISE should the redirect be to the "Laboratory Safety" page. If someone were to be looking for information on Laboratory Safety they would search.....Laboratory Safety. The WIV Lab Leak hypothesis is a prominent topic in the discourse, and "Lab leak" is a concise and intuitive way to search for information on this topic. Hatnotes could be useful if we wanted to cover the user searching for Laboratory Safety effectively. Thank you all. CatDamon (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't address the alternative proposal; nor concerns of recentism. Ivanvector's comparison also seems valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair point User:RandomCanadian - I am open to a redirect to "List of laboratory biosecurity incidents" should a hatnote be incorporated into that page, redirecting to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" should a reader be looking for information on that topic. Hoping that is fair, thank you all. CatDamon (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the squirrel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per RandomCanadian. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate/setindexify While biosecurity incidents are a form of lab leak, there are several other forms. In any case, it should not point to the COVID article, since it is overly generic. In the Cold War, one might expect this to refer to nuclear espionage. And chemical lab leaks have occurred with poisonous substances getting out. So a set index might be the best use of such a pagename, with espionage topics (including industrial espionage), nuclear radiological leaks, chemical leaks, biological substance leaks, all being listed -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per anon above. Retarget as suggested would be my second choice. This is too vague to point to COVID pages and we should avoid recentism. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 for the laboratory accident hypothesis, COVID-19 misinformation for the conspiracy theory, and List of laboratory biosecurity incidents. The fact that this redirect was created in 2021 in response to COVID, and that COVID information is what the vast majority of readers are looking for, dictates that COVID content should be easily accessible for readers who search for "lab leak". When was the last pandemic of comparable scale and impact? COVID will remain relevant for a long time, so recentism shouldn't be that much of a concern. feminist (+) 12:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I came to Lab leak looking for information about the Wuhan lab leak getting so much media attention now. Not sure why we don't have an article for it yet senators are questioning people about it now and ample news coverage. Dream Focus 03:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate, It's obvious that plenty of people are going to search for this term expecting information on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. We need to have some sort of redirect pointing people in the direction of what they are actually looking for. For now, a disambiguation page would definitely help. I oppose redirecting to "List of laboratory biosecurity incidents", which of course doesn't mention the COVID lab leak hypothesis and therefore wouldn't be appropriate as a redirect. Krow750 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. From a cursory search, "Lab leak" (sometimes hyphenated as "Lab-leak") is a term specific to covid. Agree with CatDamon that it would be a surprise if the reader sees no Covid related content related to the topic.
On disambiguation: Anon 67 mentions the Cold War and other varied scenarios, but I would like to first see references that tie "lab leak" to any. Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article gives many example sources, but none of them mention lab leak, or even leak. The closest I found was the 2007 UK foot-and-mouth outbreak, but the text "lab leak" was used literally, and not as a term. Let us not retrofit the literal term to laboratory articles like safety. Agree with CatDamon that someone looking for lab safety will try "lab safety". If future outbreaks are referred to as lab leaks, then sure we should disambig. Disagree with disambig to COVID-19 misinformation, the original target of this redirect. What started as a theory or hypothesis, later turned into investigation, the current target.
On recentism: While WP:RECENTISM applies to article titles and content, it makes no mention of redirects. Just like WP:RNEUTRAL, redirect names should be flexible as it helps keep the respective targets balanced with respect to recentism. Jay (talk) 10:01, 5 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) 20:58, 7 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.

Minecraft SMP YouTubers[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 Sapnap, redirect GeorgeNotFound (after restoration) to Dream SMP and delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects regarding these redirects can not count as WP:ITSA, because most part of them haven't become famous by just playing with Dream, and the few that have become famous because of Dream have established their own notability in the Minecraft community (notability that is not enough to deserve a Wikipedia article in most cases, due to lack of reliable sources). Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is already a precedent (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_15#GeorgeNotFound) which was sent to AFD because it was turned into an article. The discussion was closed as deleting without redirecting. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing discussion title to something more reasonable for the group of redirects. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like the redirects for the Dream SMP members should be removed unless mentioned in a section, but the 4 hunters redirects (BadBoyHalo, Sapnap, Antfrost) excluding George should stand. 92.237.102.75 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sapnap; Redirect GeorgeNotFound; Delete the rest. Sapnap and GeorgeNotFound are the only two individuals (besides Dream) within the Dream Team. Their association has been noted in a variety of articles online.[1][2][3] Additionally, I found more sources which mentioned Dream and GeorgeNotFound. These two articles credit GeorgeNotFound as a co-founder of the Dream SMP, and this set of articles has noted the real person fiction written about the two creators.
    These sources were not discussed in the AFD for GeorgeNotFound, so I think it is safe to recreate it as a redirect (though with proper protections in place to prevent article re-creation).
    As for the other redirects, many of them are not mentioned in the article. It would therefore cause more confusion if readers were directed to that article instead of getting a redlink. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all (except PmBata, but also GeorgeNotFound) to Dream SMP (as the server is now notable enough for its own article). EDIT: To clarify, these redirects do indeed receive a sizable amount of pageviews. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GeorgeNotFound and Sapnap pointing to Dream's article without section redirects. Delete the others as not mentioned. Alternatively GeorgeNotFound could redirect to Dream SMP as a founder, but he has notability for being in a prominent Dream video. Do not recreate article since that goes against the delete result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeorgeNotFound back in April. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget GeorgeNotFound to Dream SMP and delete the others. Even Sapnap has a very limited mention at the target article, and in reliable sources. Redlinks are less confusing to readers who will expect to learn something non-trivial about the subject at the target article. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 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.

One-party state 2.0[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 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly WP:POINTy redirect with only 159 pageviews. I could not find any sources using this name on a Google News search. dudhhrContribs 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: definitely a loaded term, and I can't find anything on ProQuest or other searches. Also no coverage of this (or any criticism negatively comparing two-party systems to one-party states) at two-party system. — Bilorv (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure, unclear, and not likely to be searched for. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:12, 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.

Minions Fever[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 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or at Minions (Despicable Me), delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a Fever mode in the video game Despicable Me: Minion Rush, but it is not explained in the article, so this is leftover gamecruft for now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:42, 7 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.

Moue[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 Glossary of French expressions in English#moue. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this RfD. Should this target facial expression as it is right now, or pout, snout reflex, wikt:moue, deleted, disambiguated, or what? I don't have a preference for any of the options currently, other than that the current target is a bit inferior to any other target IMO. J947's public account 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to snout reflex as that is where the pout or moue is explained {{R from synonym}} / {{R from subtopic}}, and repoint "moues" there as well. "pout" is a disambiguation page, so the wrong target, since it isn't a disambiguation page for "moue/s" ; "facial expression" could serve as the destination, but "snout reflex" covers pouting, which is what a moue is. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:17, 22 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 7 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.

Lin Long[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 14#Lin Long

Aceh 2005 earthquake[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 Aceh#Tsunami disaster. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quake occurred in 2004, not 2005. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if it is looking for aftershocks in 2005, then this is the correct destination -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to 2005 Nias–Simeulue earthquake, a quake in the same area which was thought at times to be related to the Boxing Day 2004 quake, and which impacted Aceh. Perhaps also delete in favour of search results - there are several notable quakes in the area around the same time (within a year or two), plus a disambiguation list at Aceh earthquake with other examples. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the creator had intended 2004 as per the initial page content, Retarget to Aceh#Tsunami disaster to better match the 2005 event per squirrel. Jay (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:41, 7 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.

Future tennis events[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 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is 11 tears in the past, not the future. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Already too vague as is. Which tennis event? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. No precedent to do this for any sports. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC) updated 02:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ITF Men's World Tennis Tour. Futures tournament, Futures tennis tournaments, and Futures tennis events redirects there and I believe that was the original intention. I'm boldly redirecting Futures tennis tournament to there now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC) striked redirect 14:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: what a relic of the past. No suitable target as there's no dominant "tennis event" that most readers would expect this to point to, and we don't have a list of all future (major) tennis events (List of tennis tournaments doesn't have an "Upcoming" section). Looking at the history, maybe this was supposed to be referring to ITF "Futures tournaments", but the singular in the redirect title makes this unclear and implausible as a search term. — Bilorv (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, good find! I believe that was the intended target, and easy to mistake singular/plural in search AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it wouldn't be missed either considering the Futures (with s) versions already have redirects there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:40, 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.

Future Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading to have a "Future" redirect to something four years in the past. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:26, 7 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.

Draft:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect now that the child has a name. 108.41.60.144 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per WP:RDRAFT; redirects from draftspace are often kept once moved to article space for historical purposes. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say often, whereas the cited guideline says "should be retained" without such qualifiers. I don't really care either way, but it's worth pointing out nothing actually links to this redirect aside from RFD-relevant listing pages, so if it's not always but "often" like you say, I don't see the harm in deleting. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Deletion will bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. "Useless" is not a criterion for redirect deletion; "harmful" would be, but I don't see how this can be considered harmful. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to draftspace being temporary by design and it's unnecessary to maintain a redirect now that it's out of draftspace. The only actual reason I've heard for keeping such redirects is to have a "bookmark" so the author can find the article, but given its prominence I'm sure Chessrat can find it without needing this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain- I can indeed find the article either way, and do not think it's important whether or not the redirect is deleted. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to facilitate navigation from old links which may exist, and remove possible confusion. J947's public account 22:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and Zeke. Unnecessary draftspace redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 03:33, 15 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_7&oldid=1030568182"