Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2021.

Laura Brehm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Laura Brehm

Allison Young[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Allison Young

Blue phone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 1#Blue phone

Wikipedia:SK4[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 Wikipedia:Speedy keep#4. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargeting this to point at Wikipedia:Speedy keep#4 to match WP:SK1 WP:SK2 and WP:SK3. I came across this by accident and thought it strange that this redirect didn't match the other redirects of this form. I'm not seeing any particular reason to have this targeting the long term abuse case when we already have the standard WP:LTA/SK4 shortcut. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. We always need to be careful with retargetting shortcut redirects to avoid breaking discussion old and new when linked and unlinked references refer to targets irrelevant to the discussion or which mean different things to different people. However here, there are no links and the unlinked uses I can find all either relate to Speedy keep point 4 or are not relating to the shortcut in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 19 October 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.

Florida, Florida[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. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches aren't indicating that this is a real name commonly used to refer to this city. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my !vote in the section below. Google results are misleading here, and it's a plausible search term. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think the redirect is silly and highly unlikely to be a search term, but then I grew up in Miami, and always knew the place as Florida City. There is a pressure to avoid ambiguity in naming things, and I just don't see people calling the city Florida. There is a municipality in Collier County that used to be officially named just Everglades, but everyone insisted on calling it Everglades City to avoid confusion with the wetlands area, so the municipality gave in and changed the official name. - Donald Albury 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin and the arguments at the #Kansas, Missouri discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this was created by a user with a history of creating redirects from made-up terms. If someone can show usage for the term, I will reconsider. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, despite this being an obviously plausible search term for those unfamiliar with how Americans refer to their cities it's almost impossible to demonstrate this use as firstly it will mostly be an informal use and secondly even, using a verbatim search Google completely ignores the comma and presents results for a mix of "Florida" and any page that happens to have two or more instances of the word "Florida" in close proximity in the source (see, e.g.[1]). Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and potentially useful for navigation. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would have made sense if there was at least one incoming link, and hence had to conform to a format. Jay (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an obviously plausible search term. Redirects are not required to be linked to, nor required to be correct. A7V2 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 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.

Kansas, Missouri[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 10:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an actual common name for this city. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's hard to get good information from Google because it ignores the comma and "Kansas Missouri" comes up much more often in phrases like "Kansas–Missouri border". This gets a few pageviews a month; hard to say if that trend will hold, but regardless, I would argue that "$cityname, $state" → "$cityname City, $state" is an inherently plausible search term. Someone unfamiliar with U.S. geography won't necessarily know the general rule that you can drop "City of" from a city's name but not drop a trailing "City". Plus the most famous city in the U.S. is the one major exception to that rule; yes, New York City is technically just called "New York" to begin with, but most people don't know that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent half my life 2.5 hours from KC and have never heard this used once. It's just as likely to refer to the dual topic of Kansas and Missouri. Hog Farm Talk 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying it's a name that's used there. I'm saying it's a name that some people might use out of ignorance, for instance if they see "Kansas City, Missouri" on a map and don't know that in American placenames we generally don't drop the "City" bit . A forgivable misunderstanding given that our largest city is the one(?) exception to that rule. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. This is a plausible error for someone unfamiliar with American naming practices. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kansas and Missouri per Hog Farm. Another Midwesterner checking in to confirm that "Kansas, Missouri" is not used for the city in my experience, but I can maybe see it as plausible for the Border War. I'm also fine with deletion, and I definitely prefer deletion over keeping as-is. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Tamzin this might not be used locally, but it's definitely a plausible search term for those who are not locals. If this is targetted to Kansas and Missouri it will need a hatnote to the present target. I strongly oppose retargetting to Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) per WP:ASTONISH. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. People should not be expected to be familiar with a topic they are searching for, otherwise there would be no need for wikipedia to exist at all! A7V2 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 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.

IMix[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 History of iTunes#iTunes 4. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tamzin in the absence of the promised dab page. Jay (talk) 20:52, 23 October 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.

Just Another War in Space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 1#Just Another War in Space

Buffalo Football Team[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. No consensus, except for the consensus that this should not point to Buffalo Bills (see WP:NCRET). --BDD (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with Buffalo Bulls football, suggest retargeting to Sports in Buffalo. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sports in Buffalo per nom. While the Bills are certainly the more well known topic, they're rarely referred to as the "Buffalo Football Team" and search results for "Buffalo Football Team" show results for both the Bulls and Bills on the first page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an attempt to make other Washington Football Team names. No traction yet to rename; reconsider when it becomes official. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most G-hits for the term 'buffalo bills renaming' involve the current 'name du jour' of Highmark Stadium, not the team being renamed (first result among many for that is sixteen results down). This isn't happening. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sports in Buffalo per Hog Farm, if anything the Bulls are primary for searches on the exact phrase, with a few hits for the Bills and football team(s) of at least one Buffalo High School but without quotes there is clearly no primary topic between them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish retarget to Sports in Buffalo per nom. We don't have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, and this action could potentially aid readers in their searches. The team isn't being renamed like Nate above me says, but there are still multiple teams (current and former) that the phrase could refer to. Regards, SONIC678 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sports in Buffalo per nom and per a similar RfD for Atlanta Football Team. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a made-up term in reference to Washington Football Team that is not in usage for any of the other NFL teams. -- Tavix (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Whether or not the intent was to refer to Washington Football Team (and I'm not certain it was) this is a highly plausible search term for someone looking for the football team playing in/associated with Buffalo who do not know or cannot remember their name in the same way Atlanta Football Team is used for that city. There are multiple such teams and no primary topic, so we should take readers to the existing page that lists the options. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case if the redirect were Buffato football team or Buffalo football, but then it should redirect to Buffalo (disambiguation)#Football. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 19 October 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 disabled[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. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is really needed as a redirect; we don't have a redirect for the deaf/the Deaf to redirect to our Deafness article. "The disabled" as a term is also deprecated by a lot of style guides; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice. AFreshStart (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Despite the term being oft deprecated it remains a useful entry point to the topic of disability for those ignorant of the deprecation. It does more good than harm, and the deletion of it seems like busywork FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Timtrent. It's not harmful to the 'pedia and might occasionally be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't say I've ever even thought of putting "the" into wikipedia at the start of a term. Who, realistically, is searching "the disabled" instead of just "disabled"? If you look at the page views for each redirect, no one. No one has used "the disabled" in the last month before this RfD went up, but hundreds have used "disabled". There is no reason to have this term, which is deprecated not only by WP style guides and relevant external organisations, but also just isn't any where near as commonly said now, when it is also simply not useful. Redirects are cheap, so why should we keep it when no one is or will use it? --Xurizuri (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "The gays" is an acceptable disambiguation then so is "The disabled". Marisauna (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marisauna: Question: is "The gays" acceptable? You have not actually made an argument as to why either one is worth keeping. You may want to have a look at WP:WHATABOUT and WP:OTHERCONTENT. Also, they aren't directly comparable. "The disabled" is actively insulting and dehumanising in a way that really isn't also true for "the gays". It's not good for either group, but it's not the same. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a way of referring to a group of disabled people that is/was in use, but which is considered to be offensive, see for example this style guide from the UK government [2] which advises against use of "the disabled". Redirects do not have to be inoffensive, they merely need to be plausible search terms, see WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NOTCENSORED. It does see some use (~20 page views in the last year) and is pointing to a reasonable target, so in my opinion it should be kept. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The phrase "the disabled" occurs more than 6000 times in articles here. A fair number of them seem to be titles or quotes but many are the ordinary (deprecated) phrase, so the redirect is quite reasonable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 192.76... Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 20 October 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.

24 pounder[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 1#24 pounder

Well I Never[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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Well I never" is a phrase used for exclamation of great surprise, not a drinking game. ––FormalDude talk 06:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wikt:well, I never, which defines the exclamation (1st choice), or retarget to Flesh & Blood (Whitesnake album)#Track listing, which includes a song by that title (2nd choice). To be fair, this originally targeted the page when it was under the title I never (a term for which a redirect exists in Wiktionary), and there is a possibility it could be used in such a drinking game, but there's a good chance the current target would WP:ASTONISH people. Regards, SONIC678 (Well, I never!) 15:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Retarget to Flesh & Blood (Whitesnake album). Since this phrase without the comma is the title of a song in the album, I would redirect there with {{R from song}}. The phrase, "Well, I never", technically should have a comma, and the wiktionary entry is correctly punctuated with a comma. I wouldn't soft redirect an incorrectly punctuated phrase to wiktionary, especially when there is a reasonable article to redirect to. Coastside (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Well I never, I never, and I Never all redirect to Never have I ever, while Well I Never (song) redirects to Flesh & Blood (Whitesnake album). - Eureka Lott 17:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I never! Never have I ever expected this to be this redirect's target. Retarget per above, since article content should take precedence over a soft redirect, with hatnote to Wiktionary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Uh, turns out it's also a song that was a b-side single by Hedge and Donna. Different song, meaning F&B didn't do a cover. Should probably hat note the Flesh & Blood article to point there I suppose. Coastside (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Then I wonder if a DAB would be the better course of action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A dab with two entries? Coastside (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three entries, since there would also be a Wiktionary link. Dabs with only two entries are perfectly acceptable, regardless. Mlb96 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A Wiktionary link on a dab isn't an entry. It's cross-link at the top of the dab for a dictionary definition. Entries are links to articles. Regarding being acceptable, per WP:ONEOTHER such a page "is not needed" and "may be deleted", at least if we consider the F&B song the primary topic. Acceptable, maybe, especially if we consider there to be no primary topic - but if someone deletes it later, it might be better to handle with hatnotes as per the guidance at WP:ONEOTHER at the start. Let me temper that by saying I'm fine with such a dab on the argument there is no primary topic if that's the consensus. Coastside (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC) [Revised] Coastside (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ONEOTHER doesn't apply here, as there is no primary topic. The correct policy is WP:NOPRIMARY, which states that dab pages with two entries are acceptable (and even gives an example of one). Mlb96 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing !vote to disambiguate (already drafted). If closed in favor of this outcome, Well I Never (song) should likely be retargeted here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote to disambiguate as per Tamzin. Coastside (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A quick google for ''"well i never" drinking game'' quickly confirms that this game is sometimes known by that term in Australia and NZ. Stevage 06:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1053091247"