Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 23, 2022.

World Music Video Awards[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 01:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Only linked from two articles on Madonna as she received an awards. The connection to Murdoch is that, according to a source used in List of Madonna records and achievements, the World Music Video Awards were the "first global television special of Rupert Murdoch's flegding network". I don't see any other content on this award, recommend delete. MB 22:50, 23 August 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.

Video Awards Gala[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 01:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. There are lots of events that could be considered a "Video Awards Gala". This apparently redirects here because "Gala Salah" chairs a number of galas. This is linked from List of awards and nominations received by Madonna, and if you follow the sources there, there was an event in 1991-92 at the end of the Premier Video Magazine's home video trade show in Toronto called the Video Awards Gala. Salah Bachir is was the publisher of the magazine and presumably the host of the ceremony. The closest mention in the article is "In 1984, Bachir started a trade publication, Premiere, to serve the needs of the burgeoning video distribution and retail sectors. He also produced an annual trade show, Focus on Video, celebrating the Canadian film industry." This should be a redlink.

MB 22:21, 23 August 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.

La Casa de las siete tumbas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#La Casa de las siete tumbas

Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas

Tinky Winkenic acid[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) 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. If fact, removed from target as made-up name mentioned only in one blog and other mirror sites that picked it up from here. MB 16:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - it seems that this is a neologism that has some usage on blogs and social media. Usage seems consistent, so unless there's a reason to suspect that this could confuse people I think keeping is fine. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and voting keep, if I get to vote) - I created the redirect. Considering that it is mentioned elsewhere, I think it should stay. There is that blog you mention, and several other places also refer to it by that name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=43&v=v8C6qA4D-wY is one example. Since the name is out there, the redirect is potentially useful. There's also no ambiguity, and the fact that it's a "made up name", while true, doesn't seem relevant to me (most names of chemicals are made up). As for mentioning it at the target, I wouldn't go that far. It's a potential search term, but not more. Renerpho (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultimately, all names are made up, as are all rules of nomenclature, and all words. We need some criterion for what to include. I found no indication that this term was in use anywhere except by one chemistry vlogger, and by two twitter users who pointed to where you added it to our article. I'll accept that you didn't intend this as vandalism, but it's not useful. I would also point out that the blog is the youtube video. "It's only in XYZ." "No, it's not, it's also in XYZ!" is not helpful. DS (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is not mentioned in the target, then there is no indication of why it redirects there. WP:ASTONISH. MB 03:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: There is no need for allegations of vandalism. Maybe you didn't intend it to, but your response came across as unfriendly. To the point: Calling the redirect "not useful" is odd. To quote from WP:RKEEP: Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. I added the redirect because I searched for the term on Wikipedia, and found nothing. I had to look up the formal (quite unwieldy) name to find it. Yes, I found it useful, and so I added it. You have not yet explained why it is "not useful". -- As for "It's only in XYZ." "No, it's not, it's also in XYZ!", that is not what I said. I misunderstood what User:MB meant when they mentioned "a blog", and accidentally referred to the same thing they were talking about. Renerpho (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful. I specifically said that I accept that your actions were not intended as vandalism. The difference between vandalism and edits which are simply unproductive is in the intent of the editor. I accept that you meant well. Also: "I misunderstood what User:MB meant when they mentioned 'a blog', and accidentally referred to the same thing they were talking about" is equivalent to my abbreviated description.
The redirect is not useful because one chemistry blogger made it up. No one else uses it. It is not real (to the extent that any name is 'real'). We do not write articles based solely on the amused ramblings of one chemistry blogger, nor do we create redirects on that basis. I could start a youtube channel of my own and invent all the new and amusing names for molecules I wanted. Would you then advocate that every single one of my suggestions be incorporated into Wikipedia? Why or why not? DS (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: Why not? Because that would be frivolous. If, on the other hand, your Youtube channel was actually viewed by people, and those people then started to incorporate your names as redirects on Wikipedia, because they were genuinely trying to search for those terms, then yes, I would absolutely support their addition. Let me be clear, I agree with you when you recently removed the name from the main article: There is no reason for the name to be in there, for the very reason you have given above. But you seem to equate adding something to the article itself, and having a redirect. The criteria for the latter are much less strict. Basically, any redirect that can be demonstrated to be potentially useful has a good reason to exist. That is FAR from what's needed for something to actually be in the article. And as I have shown with the link posted below, people have searched for the term. There were 10 searches during the 1st half of August, and almost 40 during the 2nd half. That is way more than enough to justify the redirect. Renerpho (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [1] for page views of "Tinky Winkenic acid" on Wikipedia. I was not the first one to try the search term, and its usage has only increased over the past couple of weeks. Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"People looking for a search term based on the amused ramblings of one chemistry blogger" are not enough.
Why not? Genuinely, the reasons for why someone uses a search term are of no relevance. What matters is what they intent to find by using it, and whether there's a redirect in place to assist them. If you personally (or even the vast majority of the community) find their search behaviour bizarre, then that is not their fault. Let me once again point to WP:RKEEP here. Renerpho (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there are valid reasons to delete a redirect. That's why this discussion exists. It's just that the arguments given here so far go against the policy I quoted in the previous comment. Renerpho (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a chemistry blogger who called Einsteinium as Planck‍ium in one video and few people genuinely came here searching for the latter, would you create a redirect for that? (Also, I assume some of the recent pageview spike is due to this RfD, which is obvious because participants like me tend to open it, see its history etc.) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: No, that "Planckium" example would probably meet the criteria at WP:RDELETE -- namely, point 2 (since "Planckium" may refer to something else like a hypothetical element yet to be officially named after Max Planck), and point 5. "Tinky Winkenic acid" doesn't have either of those problems. The only question, I guess, is whether it meets WP:RDELETE point 8: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. And as I explained, that is handled by WP:RKEEP, point 5: However, avoid deleting such redirects if someone finds them useful. Renerpho (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the term's usage has increased, prove it. DS (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. When you do a Google search with -Wikipedia, there's one YouTube channel and one person on Twitter [2]. Redirects, like any other Wikipedia content, need to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and there's no evidence of that here. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thanks to IP61. I don't see that Tinky Winkenic acid is in anyway an alternate name for this chemical compound apart from just being made up by someone. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8 - novel and obscure name. A vlogger/youtuber made it up. If it gets more adoption, maybe it can be accepted here. Jay 💬 17:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this is an accepted or widely used name for the target in any WP:RS. If there is no consensus for (or consensus against) including it as an alternative name at the target, then we should not have a redirect for it. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 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.

The midterm effect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#The midterm effect

Template:Apocalypse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Template:Apocalypse

Server Sundaram (2020 film)[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! 04:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2020. It still hasn't, and there are no mainspace incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an {{R from move}} - the article was at this title from February to December 2020 and the film had three scheduled release dates in 2020 so it's plausible that people will be looking for it here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 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.

Ollywood TV[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 Odia-language television channels#Defunct channels. ✗plicit 07:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Not sure what the connection may be. WP:ASTONISH MB 03:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 23 August 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.

Grooming conspiracy theory[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. No additional titles were found suitable for disambiguation, however it may be turned into one in future. There was no agreement between Keep, Delete or turn into article, as alternatives to disambiguating. Jay 💬 06:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page for this - there are other non-LGBT grooming claims (some of which may be dismissed as conspiracy theories), especially outside the US. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query: is there a suitable alternate target to redirect this to? Or are there articles on the other grooming conspiracy theories that we could turn grooming conspiracy theory into a disambiguation page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory about "grooming gangs" in India. Not sure about UK articles. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Love Jihad doesn't mention grooming or grooming gangs even once. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't explicitly mentions "grooming" is probably a function of the fact that it isn't a term widely popular in Indian English. Here, grooming is more or less a positive term, becoming a better public speaker, having proper dressing sense, etc. However, the contents of the conspiracy theory is indicative of what the average American would call grooming. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason that Grooming conspiracy theory redirects to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is because you boldly moved Grooming conspiracy theory to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. I think this is a but much, I just don't see the logic behind the request... If there are other grooming conspiracy theories then wouldn't we make it a disambiguation page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a bold move, but one I think had talk page consensus. As also mentioned on the talk page, in the UK in particular there are other far-right Islamophobic claims surrounding "grooming gangs", many of which are conspiratorial in nature. Plenty of these have their own Wikipedia pages, see: List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom. But I think making this into a disambigation page would be too broad in scope, and subject to OR - best to delete the redirect entirely IMO as it is too vague. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was either bold or had consensus, it can't be both. You appear to have linked to actual cases of abuse, not any related conspiracy theories. Are you sure thats what you meant to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding was that an edit which had narrow consensus could be considered bold by some, apologies if I don't understand Wikipedia terminology correctly. And yes it was intentional - as I explained, there are a lot of (mostly far-right, mostly Islamophobic) claims surrounding these cases that are conspiratorial in nature. This was raised by other editors on the main talk page for the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Claims which are conspiratorial in nature =/= conspiracy theory. I asked about other grooming conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a very recent {{r from move}} that lacks other potential targets. There's no ambiguity about this title on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. - Eureka Lott 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is an existing target, Love jihad, which is a conspiracy theory about Muslim "grooming gangs" in India targeting Hindus. In addition to India, there is a different type of conspiracy theory in the UK on Muslim grooming gangs [3]. Also [4] covers both India and the UK covering "grooming gangs" conspiracy theories. There are existing articles on real cases in the UK, of group grooming mostly by West Asian Muslim (Pakistani and others) men, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, Rochdale child sex abuse ring, Huddersfield grooming gang, Newcastle sex abuse ring, Peterborough sex abuse case, Derby child sex abuse ring, Oxford child sex abuse ring, and Telford child sexual exploitation scandal are articles on real cases that are drivers of the conspiracy theory. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love Jihad doesn't use "grooming" even once and the sole use of "groom" is in the context of bride and groom. That is not an existing target. Real cases are not conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally this would be listified, but not sure there are sufficient sources for a list. Disambiguation could work... but would likely lead to various disputes about what should be considered a "conspiracy theory". If there are insufficient sources to create a list, I'd support deletion per Gilgul Kaful. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, without prejudice to it later being retargeted at a disambiguation page if there are other reasonable target articles which justify making such a disambiguation page and if somebody actually makes one. No good reason to delete. I expect that 70%-90% of people searching "Grooming conspiracy theory" will be expecting the current target topic about the homophobic and transphobic conspiracy, as this is an internationally circulating canard. Most of the rest will probably be expecting something about Islamophobic "grooming" conspiracy theories, which primarily circulate in the UK. If we can offer readers a choice of both then that's great. Otherwise, lets just leave it as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice to future disambiguation, exactly per DanielRigal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like this should either be a disambiguation, or an article.★Trekker (talk) 12:51, 23 August 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.

Gray-asparagus[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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, nor does the section exist in the target article. Note though that this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment does this ever refer to white asparagus ? -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is to be kept, move without leaving a redirect to gray asparagus (which was reduced via mass deletion à la the Neelix criterion). That title is plausible, whereas this one is much less so (if at all). Also noting that "grey asparagus" is nonexistent. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 23 August 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.

Isosceles Lock[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 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure slang term, not mentioned at target or anywhere else in Wikipedia besides a "see also" entry at Isosceles (disambiguation). No reliable sources available to support adding it anywhere else [5][6]. Based on a regular Google search I'm not even sure it meets Wiktionary's inclusion criteria. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_23&oldid=1108314618"