Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2023.

D. J. Moore (disambiguation)[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 DELETED. CSD G14/G7 per discussion. --Hadal (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target not a dab, so falls within G14. As creator, I also declare it eligible for G7. Brought here because a speedy deletion tag was removed. Courtesy ping: EchidnaLives, Saúl Rodrigo Martínez. Certes (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Thanks for the ping. Clearly falls under G14 as the DAB page has now been deleted per Talk:D._J._Moore#Requested_move_11_March_2023. @Saúl Rodrigo Martínez: could you please explain why you removed the tag? echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Rosalind the rover[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Rosalind the rover

Christian Biblical Council[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Christian Biblical Council

Perspective Distortion, Source[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 history merged to Perspective distortion (photography) and deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old, but now unhelpful. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

An example of copyright infrigement[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. Salvio giuliano 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo ("infrigement" should be "infringement"), and unlikely search term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Abayomi Martin[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, given that the nomination rationale has been voided. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)

Tourism in Capri[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 Capri#Economy. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia."

An encyclopedic article about tourism in Capri would be possible, with its history, economic impact, ... Linking instead to a tourist guide, only because it is a sister project, is not in line with our policies or aims. And combining a redirect with a "see also" section is just weird. Fram (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per redlink. This is an encyclopedic topic, and even if it can't sustain its own article should at least link elsewhere rather than off-site. 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like this much better than doing direct links between sister projects in the text, per WP:ASTONISH --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this make sense? No one is arguing to have "direct links between sister projects in the text", normally these shouldn't happen either. You seem to be presenting some false dilemma, as if we need to have one or the other, while we can just as well have neither. Fram (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not agree with your extremely narrow interpretation of SISTER. It could say "The two exceptions" which would show that they are a closed set, but the consensus is for a wording that infers that there are other examples. Wikivoyage here would be more useful for our readers than dumping them to a wide ranging economy section and I prefer to do it softly to not astonish them. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I believe that guideline is mostly referring to soft redirects to Wiktionary. This use seems like exactly the point of {{Wikivoyage redirect}}. If there is scope to create an article for Tourism in Capri, editors are welcome to replace the redirect. MClay1 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • From that template: "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikivoyage and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." Is there any evidence that this had previously been created? Otherwise it doesn't follow the guidance of the template (which matches the guidance at WP:SSRT). Apart from this, why should we have a page which directs readers to an unreliable travel guide with a random selection of restaurants, cafés, ...? In what way is this what enwiki is for or wants to stand for? Wiktionary at least is supposedly a neutral, factual dictionary definition, not this thing which never should have been created as a WMF project probably, but which certainly doesn't align very well with the values of enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template is barely used, so if that is the intended scope for its use, perhaps it needs a rethink. I don't think it's up to us to make judgements on whether or not a sister project should exist. If the quality of it is truly a concern, driving more people towards it will increase participation and eventually quality. Perhaps there needs to be a broader discussion to see if there is consensus on this type of redirect at all. But while they do exist, this one seems fine. MClay1 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why should we drive our editors to a project which has a completely different purpose and doesn't in any way support Wikipedia as such? It's not like Commons or Wikidata (with all its flaws), which are directly used on enwiki. What benefit does it give enwiki to drive our editors to Wikivoyage? It doesn't improve enwiki, it doesn't present our readers with an encyclopedic article about tourism in Capri. Fram (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "For arriving in style, Capritime Boats specialises in water taxi direct transfers from Naples, Sorrento, the Amalfi Coast and Ischia to Capri. They also provide luxury full-day and half-day boat tours to the Amalfi Coast and Sorrento Coast from Capri, tailor itineraries for cruise ship passengers docked in Sorrento, Capri, Naples and Amalfi and also offer special Capri and Ischia island boat excursions." Or do you prefer "Buonocore Gelateria Pasticceria Gastronomia e Tavola Calda, Via Vittorio Emanuele, 35, ☏ +39 081 8377826. Very close to the 'Piazzetta', this place is plenty of very good sweets but the best is their ice cream with just done/still hot cones. Assistants speak English."? Why don't we just let them put adds on enwiki instead, instead of forcing them to detour through this soft redirect first? Fram (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you think we shouldn't link to a wiki article because it's poorly written, by that logic, we also shouldn't link to bad Wikipedia articles either. If you have a problem with the way the article is written, you're welcome to improve it. In principle, as long as Wikivoyage articles are well maintained, there should be no issue with this sort of redirect. I have no objection to having a wider discussion somewhere else about whether we should be linking to Wikivoyage until its quality improves, but until there is consensus for that, we should not be treating it differently to Wiktionary or other any other sister project. MClay1 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said it was poorly written? Perhaps this is perfectly written for Wikivoyage, I don't know and don't care what their editorial stance is. But in my view Wikivoyage is incompatible with enwiki, and WP:SISTER makes it clear that Wikivoyage is not one of the accepted exceptions, unlike Wiktionary, so our guidelines already treat it differently. Fram (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked to Tourism in North America when creating this. I don't see what's changed since that RfD. SSRT, besides being worded as about Wiktionary, is a pretty loose guideline, primarily meant to say "Just because you can soft-redirect something to Wiktionary doesn't mean you should." While it comes up at RfD from time to time, there has never been consensus, to my knowledge, that it is on its own a reason to delete something. (WP:SOFTSP overall is a kind of baffling style guideline that seems about a decade out of sync with common practice. It implies that the main circumstance for creating interwiki soft redirects is after a transwiki [a process so rare that basically all other mentions of it in policies and guidelines have been removed], and that there is no such thing as an interwiki soft redirect with possibilities, which is at odds with years of RfD precedent. The guideline should probably be overhauled.) Finally, if there is a concern with soft redirects to Wikivoyage in general, as there was once a concern with inline links to Wikinews, then the appropriate venue to address that is an RfC to restrict that practice, not an RfD against one Wikivoyage redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have deleted multiple transproject soft redirects with just a reference to SSRT, no idea what your experience to the contrary is based on. Anyway, one RfD from 2021 hardly means that no other RfDs can be had, consensus can change (and the fact that that RfD was started also shows that these aren't uncontroversial). Finally, it is not unusual to first have a number of RfDs (or AfDs or whatever) to test the waters, before starting an RfC to get a more definitive answer. Of course, you are free to start an RfC to see if this practice is even allowed, basically creating an article with only an external link to an unreliable site promoting random commercial entities. You haven't really answered why you would think this would be a good idea in the first place, considering the quality of such targets and the discrepancy between such pages and the goals of Wikipedia (and what is expressed in WP:NOTTRAVEL). Fram (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, it sounds like what you want is to ban redirecting to Wikivoyage, which is beyond RfD's purview. It's one thing to "test the waters"; it's another thing to RfD something with a rationale that would equally apply to an entire class of redirects that is currently allowed. I created this particular one so that I could link to the Wikivoyage entry from an article without the potential astonishment of taking someone directly to a different site, and with the added benefit of having the navbox there to show some related topics. And yes, you may have RfD'd things that would be discouraged under WP:SSRT and merited deletion. Lots of people RfD things that would be discouraged under SSRT but don't merit deletion, and they get kept. Like Tourism in North America, but like plenty of others too. I can go digging through the archives if you want evidence that RfD does not treat SSRT as a hard-and-fast reason to delete—particularly when the redirect is useful. So again, if you want to make new policy, go start an RfC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I created this particular one so that I could link to the Wikivoyage entry from an article without the potential astonishment of taking someone directly to a different site"? Why would you link to the Wikivoyage article from an article anyway? Oh, I see, you want to have a GA at Capri-Sun and for some reason just had to create the link in the sentence "The name references the Italian island of Capri due to its status as a vacation destination." That is a terrible use of a Wikivoyage link, no matter if it is direct or indirect. A redlink (or no link at all) would be much better there. Apart from that, I have WP:SSRT behind me, if you believe it shouldn't apply to Wikivoyage links, it is up to you to amend it through an RfC. I am asking for the deletion of this one redirect, if you insist that it is an all of nothing then you are free to raise this at an appropriate all or nothing forum, but please don't derail a legitimate request to delete one redirect (which you created). Fram (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've got a sec, and this might come in handy at some later date regardless, so, looking at the 1 past Wikivoyage RfD and the all Wiktionary RfDs of 2022 or 2023 (excluding one trainwreck):
Kept Ret/DAB to local Deleted No consensus
Only SSRT cited 1: Stink eye (your nom) 1: Set out (your nom)
SSRT cited among other concerns 3: Multifandom (your nom); Trumpanzee (your nom); Party foul (your nom) 2: ꑭ; ≬
SSRT not cited 2: Tourism in North America [voy] ; ⊚ 2: Fukuro; Xenogender 5: Teething troubles (figurative) (my nom); L@@K; ∾; LYL; JGIYN 2: ⋺; ⋵

So, in 2022 and 2023 that's 4 Wikivoyage or Wiktionary redirects that haven't had consensus to delete where no one bothered to bring up SSRT, and 2 cases where SSRT was invoked but still didn't get to consensus to delete. Meanwhile only one redirect has been deleted because of SSRT and nothing else. So no, I would not say there is consensus that SSRT is on its own a reason to delete. Just like there's nothing in SSRT or any other policy or guideline saying that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Capri#Economy, where the tourism industry in Capri is described. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Capri#Economy, where the tourism industry in Capri is described. My opinion is the same as Tavix above but was reached independently. Tiny Particle (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a tough one. I like unorthodox solutions to cases like this one, and something that gives different options for the reader here is good (minor change made to integrate the navbox in a bit). That said, our coverage of tourism in Capri isn't too shabby – we have decent coverage on it at Capri (particularly the Economy section but not solely), at of course the various tourism hotspots, and mentions throughout Tourism in Italy. J947 † edits 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Capri#Economy. I'm really not seeing a good reason to target this to a sister project when local coverage exists. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Capri#Economy. Whatever your views on Wikivoyage redirects in principle, semi-external tourguide destinations shouldn't take priority over locally available encyclopedic content. – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everyone above. The encyclopedia should direct readers to encyclopedic content whenever possible; a {{Wikivoyage inline}} link could be made from the target subsection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Boris Pecker[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. Salvio giuliano 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete redirect or establish a link with the target.There is no mention of Boris Pecker in the target. I wanted to find out about Boris Pecker who is or was apparently a musician but searching for him in Wikipedia leaves me in the dark still. I put a note in the talk page for the target article in 2020 but no-one has taked this up Spinney Hill (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinney Hill: it looks like something broke in your RfD nomination. Veverve (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
don't know" I have never done this before and found can anyone assist? Spinney Hill (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the entry here – I hope – and also added the appropriate template to the redirect page. You erroneously added {{rfd}} to the target. Usually you would also need to notify the redirect creator. Using these templates can be really tricky and if you're unsure, I would recommend using Twinkle: with it you can do all this work by clicking buttons and writing a rationale.
The reason Boris Pecker was targeted to Dead Famous (novel) is spelled out at Pecker, a disambiguation page: Boris Pecker is a character in Dead Famous. Politrukki (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case the target page needs an addition to say so. I don't have a source or the novel itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - according to [1], "Boris Pecker" is not a character, but is one of several porn names of the character David Dalgleish, who is included in the list of characters in the article. His stage name might also be "Lord Shag", and the names might be just names for his penis. This seems to be highly obscure and I don't think we need to add it to the article, and without an explanation in the article this redirect is confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If "Boris Pecker" is not mentioned in the target, this redirect is too obscure. According to my Google Books search, "Boris Pecker" (David's porn alias) is mentioned about four times in Dead Famous. I'm unable to find any secondary source that "Boris Pecker" in connection with the book, which suggests the alias is insignificant trivia that shouldn't even be mentioned in the target. Politrukki (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:DREV[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. Salvio giuliano 09:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted new redirect that is a net negative addition. The shortcut is DRV. It is stable, old, and well recognised. The addition of random new alternatives has no benefit, and risks confusion. WP:DREV has no history, incoming links, or pageviews. Dispose of it now and advise that new shortcuts should not be made where existing shortcuts are already working. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, and this is the first time I'm invoking that shortcut as a rationale. This shortcut is intuitive, unambiguous, and was created by a user in good standing. It doesn't have incoming links because it was created less than a month ago. The only drawback is the low pageviews, but the same can be said about the thousands of shortcuts that fly under the radar and have never been nominated for RFD. We shouldn't delete shortcuts merely because of the existence of another, better known shortcut with incoming links. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree entirely with Dsuke1998AEOS * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an intuitive shortcut: Deletion Review. There are much better uses of your time than aggressively policing which cryptic abbreviations Wikipedians choose to type in when looking for a project page. Glades12 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Glades12 (talk · contribs) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone except Glades12, who didn't need to cast aspersions in their comment. The new shortcut impacts neither the stability, nor the age, nor the broad recognition of the existing one, and if you're going to assert that something is confusing you ought to explain why. Clearly someone finds it useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, especially Ivanvector. Very clearly not confusing, misleading, or in any other way harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Sirish[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Sirish

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_19&oldid=1146919948"