Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2

From PsiForum
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2021.

Southeast Michigan Outbreak

Currently redirects to 1997 southeast Michigan tornado outbreak, but lacks specificity -- outbreak of what? Chicken pox? COVID-19? Auto manufacturing? Existentialism? This is by no means the only outbreak that's ever happened in southeast Michigan. jp×g 20:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There should be no ambiguity whatsoever on the topic. The topic name should specify that it's a tornado outbreak. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Minang

In addition to current target (dab), this has redirected to Nyungar language, Minangkabau language, Minangkabau people and was always changed without discussion. From the most recent change/edit summary, the dab may not have been intended. I'm making no recommendation myself. MB 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Dabify to at least Minangkabau people (also known as Minang), Mineng (also known as Minang) and Padang cuisine (which is also known as Minang cuisine). I might have missed some plausible targets. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mudminnow

Umbridae only contains three of the seven extant species of mudminnow. Muskellungelounge (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added the plural here to be considered together. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero-level projection

Not mentioned at the target, GScholar suggests this phrase is common across many disciplines, not just linguistics. Delete unless justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Head (linguistics)#X-bar trees has the description "It is head-initial insofar as the head X0 precedes its complement...", and "X0" and "zero-level projection" stand for exactly the same thing. Google Scholar - "zero-level projection" gives us many hits, and everything but the first ("Atomic resolution blahblah") is on linguistics. I don't believe this is enough for one to consider the term cross-disciplinary (although I wouldn't disagree if someone familiar with math disambiguates it). Google Scholar - "zero-level category" has even more hits (note that "ZL category" is terminologically more neutral than "ZL projection" because the latter is obsolete as the X-bar theory, from which it originates, has itself been replaced by the Minimalist program.) --Dragoniez (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Library of Congress Authorities

This redirect was deleted in 2016 via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21#Library_of_Congress_Authorities, and re-created in 2019. All of the same rationales for deletion still apply to the replacement redirect. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Astley's Ampitheatre

deletion as its a misspelling that has been there for a long time, there is already a disambig set up today Financefactz (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Divyang

This is a Hindi word, not mentioned at target. Apparently, its usage is controversial. There were three articles using the redirect, which I have reworded. There are other unlinked uses which should probably be reworded as well, but searching is complicated by people with this as a given name. As far as a better target, Disability in India#Government policy discusses the term specifically. MB 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat

Formerly used in Lord Lovat as redirect to the 13th Lord (which is by some considered the 15th): the fact is the actual 15th Lord Lovat is a different person (a WWII veteran born in 1911, as the text itself says). I fixed the link in Lord Lovat, now the redirect is quite useless as it is not mentioned as target by any page and IMHO should be deleted. Leofbrj (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

The Mechanisms

This is the name of a different, completely unrelated band from Mechanism, and all of the links using this redirect have been mistaken links from The Mechanisms rather than the target. I'd make an article for the real The Mechanisms, but while they have an enthusiastic cult following I'm not sure if they're notable by Wikipedia's standards. Rusalkii (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Heh, not a band I ever thought to see show up at RfD. I'm slightly biased here, perhaps, having quite liked the one album of theirs I listened to, Once Upon a Time in Space. But I think I can set that aside... /lh
    I see where IP65 is coming from, but I disagree. If they're notable enough to redlink, then they should be redlinked without disambiguator. Google results suggest (yes, even Incognito to avoid personalized results) that the main usage of "The Mechanisms" is in reference to the band, so this seems like it would be a WP:SMALLDETAILS situation, like Atlantic / The Atlantic. So either we should delete this per nom under REDLINK, or we should say that this band isn't notable and retarget to the DAB and unlink all backlinks. Looking at search results, I'm afraid I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but maybe I've missed something. Defaulting to retarget to DAB and un-backlink, but remain open to being convinced that there's article potential here (in which case I'd switch to !voting redlink). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If as Rusalkii stated, it isn't sufficiently notable, then the base name should point to the dab page. The redlink can serve to point to whatever other article the band ever appears in as a subtopic, if such were written. As it is, we could just point it to the space pirates list, instead of being a redlink. Or keep it as a redlink, waiting for such a more substantial overarching article to be written. Surely there should be a list of bands of X where a listentry could be built for it? Then the redlink could be converted to a redirect to that list. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as the disambiguation page does not cover any topic called "The Mechanisms". The band is mentioned only in passing in various articles which would not be good targets either (e.g. Hereward the wake). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mechanism does not disambiguate "The Mechanisms". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dindu Nuffin

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete as a clearly offensive or abusive term that is not in wide use. Dindu nuffin does not exist, so there is no reason to have the capitalized version which could be confused with the more unambiguous Dindu Nuffin (song). WP:RNEUTRAL specifies that an "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources [to describe the article subject]" may be kept, which this is not. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS; with hatnote. Create the dindu nuffin redirect, redirecting to this target. So it redirects to a page which explains it as a term. Similar to what mainstream media have done. It isn't used by mainstream media, but it is mentioned (use–mention distinction). And if all non-neutral redirects were required to be used by mainstream media, then the alt-right echo chamber would only develop as those encountering the term can not see it being described in a neutral manner on Wikipedia.
    In terms of wikilawyering about WP:RNEUTRAL, I don't see where to describe the article subject is implied in the sentence referenced in the nomination. Paraphrasing; the term is established, even if not in established sources, and perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The use–mention distinction is exactly the reason to delete. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms ... For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. This is what is meant by "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources".
    DIFFCAPS is largely irrelevant since Dindu Nuffin (song) already exists. Loss of this fringe term will not harm readers' ability to search for it in the encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is encyclopedic information, referenced to reliable sources, right in the article. It makes zero sense to not have an unambiguous redirect that directs readers to information on the topic. Dindu Nuffin (song) is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; an {{R from avoided double redirect}} in regards to Dindu Nuffin. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The reason is given by WP:R#DELETE #3. Several other phrases mentioned at Alt-right#Use of memes do not exist as redirects, such as "Rapefugees" (see earlier RfD) and "We wuz kangz n shieet". Readers are unlikely to stumble across these terms in legitimate, mainstream sources; the only people who regularly use them are alt-right trolls. So I see little value, and potential WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO issues, in making them into redirects. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Readers are very likely to stumble across the term in many places (even if not mainstream) and are very likely, if having not heard of it before, to search it up on Wikipedia. I think it's very short-sighted to claim this isn't a common term. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's what the search function is for. What are some examples of sources that use (not mention) the term "dindu nuffin"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    This seems faintly ridiculous. A term does not need to be used in mainstream media to be widespread, as this one is. The underlined: The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. This is very likely to be useful to avoid readers being sucked into the alt-right wormhole. As we do seem to be wikilawyering rather than using our brains: Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Your interpretation makes the first sentence untrue. We have articles about many non-neutral terms unused in mainstream media, and apparently we can't have redirects about such terms if they aren't quite notable. The second sentence also runs contrary to your argument. The redirect may be non-neutral, but it is neutral. Also, the search function is notably unreliable and not accessible for all ways of finding content. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's a difference between a term being "non-neutral" and outright racist abuse. Whether a term is widespread in the public at large is not the issue. The relevant standard per WP:RNEUTRAL is an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. These are not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Part of an encyclopedia is covering racist abuse. We do this in articles, which of necessity come under racist names. With redirects to sub-sections of articles, I don't see how it isn't the same thing. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with J947's overall logic, but I oppose DIFFCAPS situations where the difference is just the first letter of the second word of a two-word term. In an era of keyboard autocorrect and searchbar auto-capitalization-correct, I think such differences tend to surprise readers more than to help them. Thus keep and add hatnote to both Doja Cat#Controversies and Doja Cat discography in the relevant section. Create sentence-case variant per J947. (And FWIW, five months later I still feel the "rapefugees" RfD went the wrong way. Again, it's a plausible search term that's explained at the target, the quintessential situation to allow a non-neutral redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention (1929)

The Third Geneva Convention from 1949 is an amendment to the one from 1929 and as such this redirect doesn't appear to make any sense. Lennart97 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep When I moved the page I stated 15:16, 21 March 2006‎ PBS "moved Third Geneva Convention (1929) to Geneva Convention (1929): Not sure of the numbering" however AFAICT this redirect does no harm and it may help people when searching for Geneva Conventions that cover POWs etc because they are likely to search on "Third Geneva Convention" when looking for such information. "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names" (WP:AT) -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, people are likely to search for "Third Geneva Convention", but "Third Geneva Convention (1929)" specifically is not a very likely search term. If people do search for it, are they looking for the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929) or for the Third Geneva Convention? Just letting them see the search results, which show both, seems more helpful than taking them to one or the other. Lennart97 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per observation about the search results being more helpful. Seems to agree with the first reason listed under WP:R#DELETE. The second reason also applies: in this case Geneva Convention (1929) = Andrew B. Smith, Third Geneva Convention (1929) = Adam B. Smith, and Third Geneva Convention = Adam Smith. The only reason under WP:R#KEEP is the one concerning some people finding it useful, but it would actually harm people who landed on that page if the search results would be more useful and the redirect itself confused them away from Third Geneva Convention. Knr5 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

69420

Not mentioned at target; mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be referring to postal codes. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obvious target is Tesla Model S, except that no one has added it there ([1]). MB 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The most prominent use on Wikipedia is APT-69420, other uses include postcodes in France and Texas, a slowly rotating minor planet, a Star Wars action figure's product code, an NER Class N locomotive and the SeaLifeBase taxon identifier for the Australian sea lion. The minor planet is the only one of these I think that would work as a redirect target, although the locomotive and hacking group would be fine on a disambig. Google adds the Tesla thing, a substring of Pi, the postcode for Kazlų Rūda, Lithuania, a song by non-notable band Lossheep, and an ordnance relating to a historic district in St. Louis, Missouri. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambig will help if there are varied usages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's also the INSEE code for Ampuis, France. Narky Blert (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've drafted a dab page if that is the result. That might be slightly better than deleting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not even for numbered minor planets this type of "stand-alone number-only redirect" works. There is already a complete listing for all numbered minor planets (more than half a million, see LoMP). -- Rfassbind – talk 00:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC).
  • Delete as such, and turn it into a disambig page with possible uses/meanings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_2&oldid=3870"