Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2021.

Men seeking men[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 to delete, but it will instead be retargeted to Men who have sex with men as the most supported alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate redirect; as far as I can tell from the wikilink (and the context I've usually heard the term in), this is usually about men seeking men for often one-off hookups, rather than men seeking a relationship with another man. Men who have sex with men might be a better redirect? AFreshStart (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. A man who is seeking a man is not necessarily looking for a relationship. There's also the semantic issue of sex vs. gender, but that's probably more an issue with the target article's title, given that that article exclusively discusses same-gender relationships. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article is not at all focused on transgender topics, and as such is overwhelmingly about people whose sex and gender are the same. For better or worse, "same-sex relationships" is the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources; analogous to "same-sex marriage". Crossroads -talk- 19:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any number of equally plausible targets, none of which mention the phrase to my knowledge, such as same-sex relationships, men who have sex with men, homosexuality, etc. Not every turn of phrase needs to be a redirect. The original creator of the redirect is indeffed for sockpuppetry, by the way. Crossroads -talk- 19:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crossroads: Why is the creator relevant? Many users that get banned have in the past made genuine contributions. That user's sockpuppetry is also unrelated to this subject matter; their sock account was mostly editing stuff about san francisco, not creating redirects about sexuality. Further, redirects don't need to be directly referenced in the text of the article, and just because there are multiple possible targets doesn't mean that this isn't a term worth redirecting. --Xurizuri (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete per Crossroads. Another possibility is Homoeroticism, where Same-sex love redirects. The syntax of this redirects calls to mind a personal advertisement, which does have some discussion of men seeking men. FWIW, I've heard the term "Achillean" to express a similar concept, but that would likely fail WP:NEO (it's the male equivalent of what's described as "Sapphic love" at the disambiguation page Sapphic). --BDD (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Men who have sex with men This is a phrase which dating services use to connect men to other men. Usually but not always that means for sex, and usually this is for gay products but sometimes people who are not gay use them. In the LGBT+ space we require extra redirects and more variation of terms because word choice in this space varies so much by region, changes so quickly by time, and because writers of citable sources are sensitive to labels and often use many terms to refer to slightly different concepts which Wikipedia treats as the same. We need more flexibility here and this is a phrase with some use and which we need to keep as an option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with this. And to repeat, this is a genuinely used term and because it is commonly used on boards/dating services (e.g. either as the full term, MSM, or M4M), it is one that someone may use to try to find an article. Ideally, the article would be expanded to include something about this, but not technically necessary as I reckon people can figure out how its related. As it's a term most frequently applied to hook-ups or casual sex, I think Men who have sex with men is the right article to redirect to over Same-sex relationship. Homosexuality also doesn't fit, because that article is a broad overview of same-sex/-gender attraction, rather than specifically sexual and specifically men. Homoeroticism could work, except that's more an article about historical conceptualisations of, and art/literature about, homosexual attraction than it is about men having sex with men (look, if we're gonna be honest, it's about ancient porn). --Xurizuri (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by Crossroads, plus the fact that this is an unlikely target for search (or wikilinks). Edit: But my second choice would be to retarget to Men who have sex with men. Colin M (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term is used within wikilinks, and doesn't appear that uncommon; there are a number of Wiki-noteworthy services that advertise themselves as for "men seeking men" or who have that as a section. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, you're right. Of 3 mainspace wikilinks, 2 are referring to the Craigslist section, which is certainly the service most strongly associated with the term. The other one was specifically used as a replacement for text that used to refer to "gay and biseuxal men". Colin M (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The meaning of "seeking" is unclear. There are simply too many potential targets. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree slightly. Yes, the term is definitely ephemistic, and may confuse the reader – which is why I would argue that the redirect should stay – but all of the results I could find from Google scholar are pretty clear that the term "men seeking men" is always used to refer to men seeking other men for sexual purposes in personal ads (as mentioned above), akin to how men who have sex with men is a commonly used term in medical literature and social research: [1] [2] [3]. No results for the term are about 'seeking' anything else... —AFreshStart (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Blue Rasberry. Technically ambiguous, but has a widely used euphemistic meaning that it should be retargeted to point to. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Blue Rasberry. Commonly used search term by various dating services which clearly has proven useful for readers, no need to delete. CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (evidently) ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I associate the term most strongly with Craigslist, which used it for years. Of course it's a generic term and Craigslist no longer does personals, so that's not a possible redirect. Online dating service doesn't use the term (and shouldn't) so probably isn't a good choice either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as ambiguous.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:06, 27 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.

Wikipedia Library[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 retaget to Wikipedia#The Wikipedia Library. The core concern of this being cross-namespace has been addressed. Some editors were not bothered by that, and while there's no prejudice against a future discussion to make this back into a cross-namespace redirect if desired, that seems like it would be a significant uphill battle to me. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to de facto meet WP:R2; I'm not sure if there's some particularly good reason for an exception (hence why I'm not just tagging for speedy deletion); unless someone can convince me there's actually GNG for this topic and it should be made in an article (which seems unlikely from a quick search) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, directs readers to the page they are looking for, thus serves its purpose. Unambiguous and helpful. Linked from many pages as well. It doesn't qualify for R2. Related for posterity. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to mainspace content per below. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, and I can't find a mainspace article that discusses the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 until mainspace content is written. It would be a different matter if there was a mainspace article/section, but given that there is only passing mentions at present but lots of references, the cross-namespace redirect is much better than search results which wont (because of those references) list the project space content until beyond page 2, a red link would be significantly inferior for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Wikipedia Library should be added to the nomination as well, since the same reasons for deletion (or non-deletion) apply. I've linked to this before in the |via= citation parameter, the same way one might link to ProQuest or Newspapers.com. I think it's somewhat helpful for that purpose because it points readers to a place where they can verify the citation... it does look like I'm one of the only people doing that, though. Spicy (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fill in citation parameters fairly fully in articles I butcheredit, but the via parameter isn't very useful, bordering harmful. Who cares, as a reader, that a reference was found this way or that? There's also agency=... should I add "My local library" as the via? It could suggest that it's the only way to find the source. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They are cross-namespace redirects from reader-facing pages to a reader-facing page. Totally acceptable. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These redirects are the only references in the mainspace to the Wikipedia Library and need to be maintained in order order to direct readers to the wikispace page that explains what it is. ––FormalDude talk 08:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article about the Wikipedia Library, a notable topic. Readers looking for an encyclopedia article about the Wikipedia Library won't find it here, and instead will be WP:ASTONISHed to find instructions for editors on how to use the library. In a related comparison: JSTOR is an article about the digital library; Wikipedia:JSTOR is usage instructions for editors. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just come to this discussion through the first of the redirect pages, thus proving to me that at least one of them is useful. WP:R2 says "except the ... Wikipedia: [etc] namespaces". These are redirects to Wikipedia: namespace, therefore WP:R2 is not a reason to delete them. Keep at least one of them. Nurg (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR cross namespace redirects should be avoided. WP:REDLINK if this topic is notable, someone should draft an article. WP:ITSELF Wikipedia should avoid linking to itself as a matter of content. "R2" doesn't apply since this is not a speedy deletion request, it is a regular deletion request. The target audience of mainspace redirects is the readership, not the authorship/editorship. This redirect is for the authorship/editorship, and not the readership, therefore it is not a helpful redirect without a pseudonamespace prefix attached. (ie. WP:LIBRARY, WPP:LIBRARY ) -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both (with and without "The") to the new section Wikipedia#The Wikipedia Library. PamD 07:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per PamD - now that a mainspace target exists, it's preferable to a CNR. Spicy (talk) 16:25, 27 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.

Caramella Girls[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 Caramelldansen. No action taken regarding a late suggestion for a similar redirect, although aligning that redirect with this one will likely prove appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect; no mention on target page whatsoever. Group of three virtual characters was created in 2008 as Remixed Record's way to continue using Caramelldansen. Mr. "username violation" Swemix was right about that. (I do believe there is a point in clarifying what this group is. Where to write that information... I have no idea.) Artoria2e5 🌉 21:12, 25 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.

Top and bottom in sex and BDSM[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has two possible redirects that are better than the main BDSM article: Top, bottom and versatile and Top, bottom, switch (BDSM). I think this should just be deleted as it seems to be a leftover redirect from a page move, and not likely to be something anyone is searching for on Wikipedia. I have removed all links to here from the article space. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep this is an {{R from move}} (the article was at this title for 2 years) that has received over 2000 hits so far this year. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 3300 hits in 2020. Winston (talk) 07:35, 29 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.

ComputerTraining.com[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 21:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without a mention this is unhelpful, and possibly advertising. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:06, 26 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.

Crimson (novel)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect was invented as result of a mistake by a user, as s/he had renamed the article Crimson (Sata novel) to Crimson (novel) before s/he realised that other novels of this title exist. Instead of deleting it, s/he changed Crimson (novel) to the redirect above. To reduce clutter in the search field for WP users looking up the term, I propose deleting Crimson (novel), as it only came up as a mistake in the first place. Said user disagreed t my deletion proposal, so I'm opening this discussion here. Robert Kerber (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No point in deleting a title which is a standard Wikipedia format and likely to be used by readers. Redirecting to the dab page is a standard "redirect from incomplete disambiguation". There are two equally valid possible outcomes:
(a) status quo: article as Crimson (Sata novel), Crimson (novel) redirects to the dab page,
or
(b) Rename the article back to Crimson (novel) (on the basis that it's possibly the Primary Topic) and add a hatnote {{about |the Sata novel|other novels of this title|Crimson (disambiguation)#Literature}}, so that readers can find the Conran and other title.
Note that there has been discussion at User_talk:Bkonrad#Crimson_(Sata_novel) (@Bkonrad:). I won't participate further right now as I'm in an online choir rehearsal. PamD 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been WP standard as in WP:BOOKDAB if there hadn't existed other novels of the title. Now there is a correctly titled article Crimson (Sata novel), a disambiguation page for the term Crimson, Crimson (disambiguation), and an additional title Crimson (novel) which came up as mistake, turned out to be expendable, and has been turned into a redirect to the dab page instead. (PS. A discussion in the common sense would have been on the article's or redirect's talk page.) --Robert Kerber (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral as to whether Crimson (novel) should redirect to the disambiguation page or if the article for the Sata novel should be moved and a hatnote place on the article. I don't agree with the proposers rationale to delete in order to reduce clutter in the search field. There is little basis for that in current guidelines. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do not agree with either of the two alternatives proposed here
1. Crimson (novel) redirects to the disambiguation page as it does now
2. rename the article back to Crimson (novel) and add a hatnote
I think another renaming of the article is the least favourable option. There has been enough to and fro, and in case articles on the other books titled Crimson will be written in the future, the whole renaming/redirecting business will start over again. (What the primary topic is, is yet another discussion – users may have heard of and be searching for Sata, but never heard of Conran, and vice versa.) --Robert Kerber (talk) 17:20, 25 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.

Date and time notation in Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#Date and time notation in Taiwan

C. solida[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#C. solida

Earl of Bute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 1#Earl of Bute

Indian nation[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. I've drafted a DAB. Improvements welcome. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Ambiguous with what? Every hit on google for the exact phrase on the first five pages relates to Native American tribal nations in North America, at least most of them in the United States. There is already a hatnote to India and Indian people for anyone using this uncommon search term for those topics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: How this then applicable to this article, which is about Indigenous Americans across all of the Americas? If this term largely applies only to Native Americans in the United States It should redirect there instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that it is only applicable to the United States, or that someone using this term will be looking for things exclusive to the United States - it's not a subject I'm incredibly knowledgeable about. I'm not opposed to narrowing the target a bit if it is narrower than the current target, but I didn't evaluate it with that in mind - your nomination implies that you think the target is too narrow rather than too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambig proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Lambiam - I can definitely see this being a plausible search term for The Indian Nation, the nation of India, and others - too many for a hatnote anyway. Hut 8.5 17:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per all the above —AFreshStart (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above. Winston (talk) 07:36, 29 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.

Core vocabulary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Core vocabulary

Basketball at the Military World Games[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 12:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, especially in a template like Template:Sports at the Military World Games And pages such as Military World Games itself. Should be deleted to invoke page creation. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Thryduulf to encourage article creation. It shouldn't be circularly linked in the target article, as it gives people the impression that we have articles on this stuff when that's not the case. Regards, SONIC678 16:11, 25 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.

Infinity (audio)[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 Infinity (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget to Infinity (disambiguation). -- This is a highly ambiguous disambiguator, since there are many audio topics on the disambiguation page, and this current target is just a speaker manufacturer, hardly the definitive "audio" topic, since there's multiple record labels and a radio network called Infinity, as well as many recordings. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:24, 25 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_25&oldid=1096456848"