Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 2, 2022.

Londongrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Londongrad

Redirects indicating "®" status[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 01:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not contain redirects that serve only to assert a brand owner's claim to trademark registration status. Notably, trademarks issue for a limited time, on a country-by-country basis. It is not Wikipedia's job to police the scope or currency of trademarks, and such titles are deceiving with respect to marks that are expired or unregistered in a given country. BD2412 T 19:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. If a company wants to defend their registered trademarks, they can't be allowed to use a non-profit to do so. We are not a web-hosting service. Before today I was not aware that any redirects used the circle R on Wikipedia. BD2412 makes a strong case these sorts of redirects are misleading. If there are any TMs, I'd hope these were discovered and deleted as well. BusterD (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BusterD: The limitations of the search function are such that it will only return good results for one special character at a time, so I started with "®"; "™" is next. BD2412 T 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unencyclopedic. Literally nobody is typing in the registered trademark symbol to find out information on a company or product. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reaper Eternal: A search query may also be formed by copying and pasting a string of characters, not only by typing it. See my comment below. Edcolins (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Though MOS:TM doesn't explicitly mention trademarks, it should nonetheless be clear that we don't use them, and they certainly aren't useful in a redirect. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." per MOS:TMRULES. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GeneReviews® but Delete the others. GeneReviews® is used in several databases and automatically gets used by various tools like User:Citation bot, WP:Citoid, WP:VE, etc... It is marked as a typo, and will get picked up in typo reports, enabling cleanup. Going to ping @BD2412, BusterD, Reaper Eternal, and Ohnoitsjamie: to let them know of this corner case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb, GeneReviews® isn't part of this RFD. GeneReviews(®) is. Note the extra parentheses. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Then... Delete all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. (@BD2412: Thanks for stealing my unspoken idea for this mass nomination.) 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: if you can track down the "™" redirects (and perhaps the "©" redirects), you are welcome to mass-nominate those. I note that there is a current RfD for Transcendental Meditation® program and Transcendental Meditation(r) program that inspired this effort. BD2412 T 21:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BD2412: "I note that there is a current RfD for Transcendental Meditation® program and Transcendental Meditation(r) program that inspired this effort." Of course! I was those redirects' nominator! 😄 Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware. That was for everyone coming into this discussion, as it is a relevant related nomination. BD2412 T 21:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I wasn't clear of that by the previous comment's wording, but no worries. Let's see what I can scrounge up... Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of this nonsense. It is basically companies trying to worm promotion into Wikipedia by saying "Oh, we have registered trademark redirects on Wikipedia! Now we are truly in business! Take that, (company who does not have a registered trademark redirect on Wikipedia)!" — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 04:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely unlikely search terms - only used for external claims.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @BD2412: Which brand owners have created these redirects and are now using them to contest a trademark status? Invasive Spices (talk) 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I never said that brand owners have created these redirects, just that serve no other purpose than to assert trademark status. Who created them is irrelevant, though I note that of the tens of thousands of brands with Wikipedia articles, only a handful even have such redirects incoming (there is no Coca-Cola®, McDonald's®, Coors Light®, Atari®, Cadillac®, Rolex®, Best Western®, or Value City Furniture®, for example), and there should not be a precedent to make more. BD2412 T 21:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then there is no need to proceed. The scenario you have given – and upon which the above votes were based – is not occurring. It is also inconceivable. Redirects are commonly used for incorrect spellings and other incorrect names – that is one of the most frequent uses. The mark owners could as easily choose to interpret these as an assertion that their marks are unregistered and sue Wikipedia because we have redirected as if the register mark is incorrect. Neither is occurring. Really, deleting these would simply make WP mildly less useful to readers. Specifically in the case of Roundup Ready® there are a few pages which link to it. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 April 2022 (UTC)
        • If you are of the opinion that there is no need to proceed, then you are welcome to not proceed. BD2412 T 21:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence has been provided that the legal consequences described are occurring. No evidence has been provided that any trademark owner has subverted Wikipedia in the manner described. This is not really occurring. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Likely search terms because a reader may copy and paste any of these terms to look it up in Wikipedia, perhaps even not knowing the meaning of the sign "®". Thus, the redirects seem to be useful regardless of the trademark status of the brands. I created the redirect "Roundup Ready®" back in 2007 and I believe I did so because there was a red link "Roundup Ready®" in the article "Plant breeders" (see the version preceding this edit) and because I most probably thought it was plausible that somebody would search for that term (there was indeed a red link). Needless to say, I had no and still have no affiliation whatsoever with the owner of the brand "Roundup Ready". I also concur with Invasive Spices that the narrative that these redirects "serve only to assert a brand owner's claim to trademark registration status" is not supported by any evidence. --Edcolins (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether that is the intent or not, that is the function of a trademark. Let me give you an example. Airhitch® is one of the nominated redirects, but the company is out of business, and the mark is dead (i.e., no longer a registered mark). To say "Airhitch®" is like saying "Betty White (living person)". It is no longer true. Like Betty White, all trademarks will eventually expire, and the "®" will become as erroneous as "(living person)" for a deceased person. Furthermore, unlike famous people, no one reports in the news that a trademark has expired, so in order to insure that we are not deceiving our readers, someone would need to check the trademark databases to insure that these marks are, in fact, living. That is not something that Wikipedia should be undertaking. BD2412 T 16:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, there is no requirement that a redirect be "true". If that was the case, all redirects containing a misspelling could be deleted, since they are "untrue" spellings. Likewise, we would have to delete the redirect "Swaziland" because the name of the country is now "Eswatini". If a reader comes across the string of characters "Airhitch®" in a book published in the 1990s (not knowing the meaning of the sign "®"), and copies and pastes it to look it up in Wikipedia, it is, I think, useful to redirect the reader to Airhitch, regardless of the status of the trademark. By doing so, we are not deceiving the reader, who will learn from the article "Airhitch" that the trademark likely expired. --Edcolins (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a difference between a redirect being "untrue" and a redirect being "misleading". An "®" symbol is a legal statement about current ownership of the word. So far as I am aware, a trademark user does not face legal jeopardy for intentionally misspelling a word, but a trademark user who intentionally incorrectly asserts that their mark is registered can indeed face legal penalties for so doing. BD2412 T 17:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If you think there is a valid legal reason to delete these redirects, why not contacting the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team to put the matter to rest (Wikimedia Foundation's legal contact page)? Would the Wikimedia Foundation be liable for keeping these redirects? Is that the concern? I would be surprised if this was the case, but I am not qualified to answer this question. Edcolins (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What part of "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." is unclear? Ten years ago the language was identical. Fifteen years ago, the same language. We don't get to decide whether or not to follow style guidelines. We apply the guideline evenly across the pedia, or change the guideline. I'm not sensing any great movement towards changing it. BusterD (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." is clear and I agree there is no need to change it. However, "[r]edirects are not articles" (see e.g. in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, "This page in a nutshell: Redirects are not articles ...") so that the guideline you cite ("... in either article text or citations ...") is not applicable to redirects. Edcolins (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your certainty, but it seems this discussion is being held precisely to decide your claim of inapplicability. The concept of applying the MOS to all namespace except redirects seems unsupportable. For the purpose of categorization, redirects are NOT articles. This makes sense; I think we can all agree on this. Perhaps for the purpose of naming, they ARE. Perhaps after this discussion concludes we may finally adjust that 16 year-old wording... BusterD (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BusterD. The MOS applies to all English Wikipedia articles (according to the first sentence of WP:MOS), and "[p]ages in mainspace that are not usually considered articles-proper" include redirects (see WP:ARTICLESPACE, towards the end of the section). Thus, the MOS is not really helpful here, IMHO. That was my point. Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your collegiality. Boldly disagreeing with friends is the way wikipedians keep from arguing. I apologize if my question seemed dismissive. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as said well above, the guidelines have been clear on this for the many years I have worked on Wikipedia. The searches should work fine without the commercial copyright or trademark symbols. W Nowicki (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia could get rather cluttered with such stuff, and keeping them could encourage linking to them in articles, which would be contrary to the MoS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2022 (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.

St helens[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 speedy keep. One primary use for redirects is to correct capitalization. As mentioned by many commentators, we even have a category for these types of redirects {{R from incorrect capitalization}}. There will not be many incoming links simply because pages should link to the correct capitalization. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient link, with no incoming links. Its target is simply to the correct capitalisation. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2022 (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.

Genital sex[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 Sexual characteristics. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sexual characteristics. No incoming mainspace links, nor mentioned at current target. Could plausibly refer to the act of sexual intercourse (cf. oral-genital sex), but I'm not seeing many RSes use it as such. Omitting certain partial matches, top Google Scholar results mostly relate to sex differentiation via external genitals. Disambiguation is another option. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC) edited 23:40, 2 April 2022 (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:Speedy rename[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 Wikipedia:Speedy rename and retarget WP:Speedy renaming to this newly created DAB. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "Categories for discussion/Speedy" is a good redirect target for "Speedy rename" as normal page moves are also often called page rename. + WP:Rename redirects to Wikipedia:Changing username, with a hatnote "WP:RENAME" redirects here. For renaming an article, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Speedy renaming is a particular type of page move that, as far as I know, only applies to categories listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. It refers to the process. Ordinary page moves and discussions at forums such as this are not speedy. A normal page move may be fast but it's unlikely that anyone would stumble across this redirect while looking for info about normal page moves. This redirect is unlikely to cause any confusion. MClay1 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like WP:RM/TR can be seen as a form of "Speedy rename". When it doesn't satisfy the criteria, it gets deferred as a "not speedy" WP:RM. Any way we can check what page users visit, after they used this redirect? ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there's also WP:RMTR which is also referred to as a speedy rename;; and file renames are either speedy through Template:Rename media or something that is handled irregularly at FFD -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of the alternative processes are really refereed to as "speedy renam[ing]"; they are instead based on implausible guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • RMTR is speedy rename, and Wikipedia editors call it that. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled WP:Speedy renaming. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted) at WP:Speedy rename per IP65 (although, to avoid bikeshedding, I'd also be fine with locating the DAB at WP:Speedy renaming). This search shows significant usage in the pagemove context, either regarding RM/TR or regarding regular RMs that closed before the seven-day mark. I know I've used "speedy move" as a result when closing RfDs that should have been RM/TRs, and "move" and "rename" are really interchangeable in that context: For instance, {{Move}} and {{Rename}} redirect to the same place. For good measure I've added a link to WP:CHU/S to the draft—if that were the only ambiguity it wouldn't be worth DABbing, but if we're going to have a DAB, that seems a plausible enough usage to warrant inclusion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does the drafted dab have an entry for Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple? Are we trying to equate speedy with simple? Jay (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a simple rename not a speedy rename? Sometimes they take time, but so do some speedy deletions. "Speedy" on the English Wikipedia means "without need for discussion", and I think that's true of CHU/S. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - the draft looks fine. signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I only knew of the category process as "speedy renaming", but Tamzin's search link shows that the term has been used in other contexts as well. I don't see any argument for a primary topic here: the redirects are little visited and they have almost no incoming links. – Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2022 (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:April Fools' Day[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#Draft:April Fools' Day

Diuranium[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 22:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The species U2 is mentioned at Quintuple bond and Phi bond, but not Uranium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to defer to search results (and bring up the Wiktionary entry). No single best target. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a mention to Uranium#Compounds -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diuranium itself is hypothetical but "Diuranium" is mentioned in the article 3 times in the context of compounds. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not let users see search results for these compounds, rather than unhelpfully just sending them to the big article about the element and making them find instances of "diuranium" in that article? As you say, they could also be seeking content on the hypothetical bonding described at Quintuple bond. If there were a specific section at Uranium to target that covers all possible meansing of "diuranium", I'd feel differently, but there isn't. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is unfortunate that the target doesn't throw light on the subject, but until we have more information, it is best to delete and lead users to the other articles that mention it better. Jay (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2022 (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.

Clearstor(e)y[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Clearstor(e)y

La Mega[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#La Mega

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_2&oldid=1084064199"