Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 17[edit]

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

Helper function[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 Withdraw. Nomination moot given changes made to target article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not synonymous. A helper function is a function that does part of the computation for another function or functions. A wrapper function calls a bunch of other functions and does little else. While these types of functions interact, they don't do so in an exclusive manner, and the target provides no direct information about helper functions. Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect: I've addressed #10 of WP:R#DELETE in this revision. As mentioned in the current revision, helper or utility functions are slackly used jargons, often interchangeably, which can be addressed in the wrapper function article since there isn't a significant coverage on the specific term to pillar its notability in deserving an article of its own; nor does the terms "wrapper" and "helper or utility" functions vastly differ—unlike callbacks which deserves its own article. So, I suggest we redirect helper function article to Wrapper function#Helper function (to this respective subsection). WikiLinuz (talk) 01:44, 18 November 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.

The Mechanisms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#The Mechanisms

Kafirism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 25#Kafirism

Domestic violence in X[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. MBisanz talk 04:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, in the case of Afghanistan, the target article is a single line stub about a domestic violence response organization that likely no longer exists; in the case of Spain, it's a stub article about a 2010 campaign. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 17 November 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.

Tourism in North America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#Tourism in North America

Xiangyun International Project[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 23:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:14, 17 November 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.

Common attributes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 25#Common attributes

Rachmanianoff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Rachmanianoff

GREEK OLD CALENDARISTS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#GREEK OLD CALENDARISTS

Michael de Leon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#Michael de Leon

Just One Person[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 25#Just One Person

Saints[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from plural to singular common nouns often accumulate silly links, and this is a particularly bad example. There was a discussion in 2008 which ended without formal closure, but kept the status quo. Readers looking for the meaning of saint do not need this redirect; readers looking for their favourite football, football, rugby or rugby team (that is by no means an exhaustive list) are going to be baffled by this WP:EASTEREGG; it's the sort of thing which brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Retarget to Saint Saint (disambiguation) as {{R from plural}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}.

Courtesy {{ping}} to Certes, who monitors this redirect every day, and may be able to provide some numbers. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see that my only recent fix was for Saints, Luton, but I expect other editors have fixed plenty of sporting references. Certes (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this yet, but I'm a bit confused by the "Retarget to Saint as {{R from plural}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}." above, as isn't that the current target? Did you mean Saint (disambiguation)? --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the above user's confusion. Could the OP clarify what article they propose switching the target to? Mlb96 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Thanks both, amended. Yes, my proposal is to retarget to the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with Lions, Tigers, Bears, oh my. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those redirects (and several others - would you like more examples?) also result in silly links which need continual monitoring. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. Narky Blert (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Saint (disambiguation). If you were looking for Saint, it seems unlikely you would type in Saints. In my mind, if you had asked me what this page redirected to, before knowing today, I would say: if it weren't a disambiguation page, it would be the New Orleans Saints. My argument isn't to redirect to that, but that many people, similar to how nom has argued, would think that this would redirect to something else. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is why redirect-from-plural exists. If you disagree with supporting it, ask for the whole system to be dismantled instead of claiming that people looking for the singular won't go to the plural. (People often link the plural, such as saints instead of saints, for example.) The concept of sainthood is millennia old, versus none of the teams are less than 150 years old, and it will exist long after all these teams have ceased to exist. The comparison with lions, tigers, and bears is not silly, because they're enduring concepts much more important than sports teams. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Saint (disambiguation). Users could be seeking one of many of the potential targets listed at the dab page, not just the plural form of Saint i.e. there is no primary topic for the plural form. Let's save them the extra click. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having redirects from plurals is one of the main purposes of redirects, as WP:POFR points out. There are exceptions, of course, when there's no primary topic—but no evidence has been presented here to make that case. All we have are speculation and feelings, and that's no basis for making a change. - Eureka Lott 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation. I fully expected that the plural would be the primary topic, but on investigating I was wrong - the first page of google results is a mix of New Orleans Saints, Southampton FC, Saints Row and a London handyman service. Page 2 adds St Johnstone FC, page 3 adds The New Saints FC, St Albans City FC, Northampton Saints and, fourth from last, the Britannica article about Roman Catholic saints (which I guess corresponds to our List of Catholic saints). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an obvious WP:PLURALPT of a common word (and the namesake of all the related topics). -- Netoholic @ 10:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably. I was fully expecting the term to be most commonly used as just the plural of "saint", but that appears not to be the case. The vast majority of the results I see in a web search are for various sports teams or other uses where "Saints" is a proper noun. The usage data (pageviews + clickstream) is inconclusive: we don't know for sure what readers are looking for when they search for "saints". But we can find out.
    To begin with – we can create a separate dab page for "Saints" (and that's something we'd need to do regardless: almost all of the entries on Saint (disambiguation) are proper nouns, which are known as either "Saint" or "Saints", but not both). After that, we'd need to remove the confounding influence of traffic coming from incoming links. I've fixed the link from one widely used navbox [1], which leaves 313 incoming links from articles. Most appear to refer to Saint (I'm assuming the other uses have previously been fixed by Narky Blert and Certes) – there, replacing [[saints]] with [[saint]]s will be an improvement anyway because of the ambiguity of the term and despite WP:NOTBROKEN. It will also be an occasion to find more specific articles to link to (the concept of a saint is a well-known one, so in most cases it probably doesn't need a link on its own).
    Once this is complete, we can monitor the outgoing traffic and if it turns out that the majority of readers are interested in the article Saint, then we'll move the dab page leaving a primary redirect. So far it appears more likely that there won't be a primary topic, so I'd support the proposal (and the work involved is also justifiable on independent grounds). – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The link to the disambiguation page as a hatnote is sufficient. The primary topic, especially given the vast historical significance, is where the redirect currently points (the neosignifigance is likely represented much more in plain search results given the popularity of sports, but e.g. academic and printed would far outweigh that the other way). Few would likely be surprised to arrive at an article covering what all the usages of the name are derived from when searching the term. AngusWOOF also makes a salient point. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:34, 8 December 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.

Myanmar People Defensive War[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RNEUTRAL: The exact phrase "Myanmar People Defensive War" is not commonly used, although "[Myanmar] people's defensive war" is used by the People's Defence Forces to describe their own armed struggle. Nonetheless, this wording is not neutral and rarely used outside of the group's own publications. CentreLeftRight ✉ 16:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this seems like an appropriate redirect per RNEUTRAL if it is used by one of the belligerents of the conflict. It would not be appropriate for an article title, but it is nonetheless plausible that readers sympathetic to the regime (or unopinionated readers encountering statements made by the regime) would attempt to find the target article using this term. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term "people's defensive war" is used by the group, not the term "Myanmar people defensive war". The current redirect should be deleted because it is not used by anyone, and a new one should be created titled People's defensive war. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think that's a plausible malformation given that the term is a translation from another language, and don't see the need for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Myanmar people defensive war" is a poor translation though, and one that has not been used in English once, aside from this redirect. What is the value of keeping this redirect from a policy perspective? CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnatural typo/error. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was turned into a redirect by a sockpuppet. Here is the original article content. If you want an alternative to Keep or Delete, you could always Revert. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a revert to the original article as it was an unsourced and poorly written mirror of Internal conflict in Myanmar. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To summarise: The English term "people's defensive war" is used by one of the groups fighting in the war but not the term "Myanmar people defensive war". The current redirect should be deleted because "Myanmar people defensive war" is not used by any group, as it is an unnatural and mistranslated term. A new redirect should be created afterwards titled "People's defensive war". CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't usually say "Myanmar people defensive war" in Burmese. We just use "people's defensive war". Htanaungg (talk) 05:10, 2 December 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.

Kreuzzüge[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 refine the first three to § Historiography and delete Cruzade. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFFL. None of these is English or routinely used in English. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first 3 or refine to § Historiography. That section discusses the term Kreuzzug. Delete the fourth. Even if someone can show why it's a reasonable redirect, it's shadowed by the existence of a notable-but-not-Notable skateboard company of the same name, so this redirect would tend to astonish readers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all The article discusses the term as a term, not a concept, so RFFL is indeed the right rule to apply here. Avilich (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep, and delete per Tamzin. Given the description at the target, the topic does have affinity with the target, and the explanation does seem sufficient for a reader searching this up. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't discuss the term, it just says that that was the German word for it. It thus falls under the bad examples outlined at WP:RFFL#Examples, and so the guideline favors deletion. Avilich (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In academic circles the phrase "Holy War" was the main descriptor, but the more neutral terms kreuzzug from German and the French croisade became established. That sounds like discussing the term to me. It's not a hugely in-depth discussion, but we don't require that. I'm also not sure how this falls under one of the "inappropriate" examples at RLOTE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just saying that those are the German and French terms for 'crusade', and these are only even mentioned because English translated the term only later. They're no more than "Common words or concepts", which are categorized under "inappropriate non-English redirects" in RFFL. Avilich (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to "common words or concepts" at WP:RLOTE is situations where there is no affinity between the language in question and the article, as shown in the examples there. If the article references the foreign-language term, that is by definition an affinity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:41, 26 November 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.

Sulla's First Civil War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Sulla's First Civil War

Mile road system[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Mile road system

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_17&oldid=1059405613"