Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9

From PsiForum
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2021.

Europeans only

Not a phrase used as a target, nor does it appear to have been an official classification within South African apartheid jurisprudence. Could equally refer to Racial segregation (which is the current target of the similar Whites only). I think that deletion to allow for internal search results may be the way to go here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Kiki Wigglesworth

Grand total of 872 Google hits if put into scare quotes, so clearly not something anyone calls her reasonably often. Origin is fairly clearly this throwaway line in a Craig Ferguson bit from 2011, but while it's a modestly hilarious moniker, it clearly didn't wind up sticking, so WP:RFD#D8 would seem to apply... AngryHarpy‍talk 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Anthony Gutierrez

Mentioned neither at target nor at 2022 United States Senate elections in California, Ballotpedia suggests that this is a very low-profile candidate; I cannot find any useful information about this candidate on enwiki that this could be pointed to. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newsletter

This and Wikipedia:Newsletters should probably redirect to the same target. —GMX🎄(on the go!) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Kraantje Pappie

Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE condition 10. Kraantje Pappie has only made two singles together with Kris Kross Amsterdam. The target article contains no information about him as a solo artist. Redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Patfield

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 delete per G8. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Target page deleted CSD G2 A7 JW 1961 Talk 14:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Artists pointing to lists of number-one hits/albums

Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE condition 10. It makes no sense to have these artists redirect to lists of number-one singles/albums, as these destination pages contain no detailed information about the artists themselves. They should be deleted to encourage article creation. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

'nam

Should we change this redirect to Vietnam, keep its target as it is, or delete it? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep, 'Nam is a common nickname for the Vietnam War [1], [2], [3], [4]. Loafiewa (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I think when this term is used it's more usually in reference to the war than the country itself, so I think the target is correct. But I doubt it's a common search term so I'm minded to delete on that basis. WaggersTALK 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nam (disambiguation) and add Vietnam and Vietnam War there; There's already and entry for The 'Nam. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but directly to Nam, which is where the dab page is precisely located; might as well cover all of the bases with this one. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ron Fontaine

Delete. This name was listed as a notable person but with no grounds of notability. The page creator did not responded to a request to state such grounds. Looking into the target page history I see that Ron Fontaine was listed under Chiefs, with citations and additional statements,[5] but that largely-unreferenced list was removed in 2012,[6] and has not been reinstated; only former Chiefs who have their own articles are listed under Notable citizens. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ratchet Feminism/ Womanism

Moved history to Ratchet Feminism. The remaining redirect is an implausible search term and should be deleted. Anarchyte (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths

  • delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's obvious the term is in the article without even looking at the article. Seems like a frivolous nomination... Huggums537 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak delete while it is a subheading in the article, it's not a likely search term and subheadings do not inherently need to have redirects. My largest hesitation is if there are incoming links because this redirect has existed for 10 years. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Mile road system

This should be retargeted to Mile Road System (Michigan) as that has more details on the topic and is more generalized than the Mile road system specifically around Detroit. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone remains free to create an article about the general concept at the lowercase title, but article creation can't be the outcome of an RfD discussion. Perhaps a WP:SETINDEX at Mile road system could be an appropriate alternative to a disambiguation page? Someone would need to draft one below the redirect content for us to consider. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A Set Index Page could help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sulla's First Civil War

Leftover redirections from an article that was gotten rid of a while ago. There's only a single "Sulla's civil war", with nothing in the article indicating otherwise. This was also not the "first Roman civil war". Avilich (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Very weak retarget the "Roman [Republic] Civil War" ones to List of Roman civil wars and revolts, where Roman civil war points, but the first entry doesn't have an article (and there may've been such conflicts happening before that, so I'm not really sure about this course of action). Definitely delete the rest per nom, plus you must've missed the "Second Civil War" one's lowercase counterpart, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sonic678: Thanks. The entry in red, which I assume is the one you mean, is the actual first civil war. I'll perhaps create that article myself in the future, and the redirect may be recreated then, but those 'First Civil War' terms are never used as proper nouns, so I don't really see any use for these redirects with upper-case initials. Avilich (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Again, I'm not averse to recreating those two "first civil war" redirects (there is, so far, consensus to delete the others) when the corresponding article is written, but right now they're not of much use, and they would be more useful if they were written with lower-case initials. This doesn't seem controversial or a good reason for relisting this further. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget any that don't mention Sulla to List of Roman civil wars and revolts where someone can find whichever civil war they may be thinking of. Retarget the redirects that mention Sulla to Sulla. I just read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulla's civil wars and I'm not buying into the argument that these names aren't used at all. Like it or not, Wikipedia had separate articles for separate events titled this way for twelve years. Anyone who comes across sources that uses these names should have a landing page, and Sulla is a good option because it goes into detail about all the events he was involved in that could conceivably be called a civil war if you use a broad enough definition. I'm also disappointed in the lack of participation here despite a healthily attended AfD, and perhaps if this is relisted again it would be worthwhile to ping the participants therein for their opinions given their interest in this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
These are placeholder names invented by Wikipedia users, and they only remained there for 12 years because that's the time it took for someone like me to come in and point out the mistake. Avilich (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@T8612: More or less: The original "Sulla's first civil war" article was a careless amalgamation of parts of the Bellum Octavianum with Sulla's march on Rome. The term "second civil war" was then invented for the only genuine "Sulla's civil war" because a distinction needed to be made with the fake "first civil war". You're probably one of few in Wikipedia who can acknowledge this fact without problem, but, for others who lack subject-matter knowledge, the explanation can sound confusing and unconvincing, which leads to time and effort being wasted on merges or discussions. What's indisputable is that the mistake originated in Wikipedia; thus, any attempt to justify keeping these as plausible search terms becomes a circular, self-perpetuating problem. It doesn't seem to me that we should allow Wikipedia's past errors to perpetuate themselves, and deleting all this should be no more controversial than a regular cleanup of any article. Avilich (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Disambiguate between Afghanistan, Taliban, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Looking at the incoming links and disambiguation fix list, it is clear that redirecting to the modern state is not appropriate for a large number of the links out there. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose disambiguation, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly refers to Afghanistan currently under Taliban rule. Taliban is the ruling organization, just as the Chinese Communist Party is the ruling organization for the People's Republic of China. Also using search as a metric for primary topic (and I did this in private browsing), and it seems that there certainly is one: islamic emirate of afghanistan - Bing islamic emirate of afghanistan - Google Search
There is a clear difference between the ruling party and what the party calls its government.
It is also worth mentioning that our title policy means we choose the most commonly searched title for a topic. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is not a commonly searched term (afghanistan, islamic emirate of afghanistan - Explore - Google Trends), but nonetheless refers to the new country and thus is a suitable redirect. It is even in the lead of the Afghanistan article. Aasim (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to look through the incoming links? Before you reverted, I was going through the disambiguation fix list, and the vast majority of the incoming links were from older articles that were using the term "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" as distinct from Afghanistan as a country, to refer to the first Taliban state or the Taliban itself (which is called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and has been this whole time!). WP:DPT tells us to look at the incoming links in determining the primary topic, and that's what we should do. Look, I get there's an almost morbid interest editors have in making sure "Afghanistan" is made totally synonymous with "Taliban", but it's going too far. Yes, the Taliban is Afghanistan's government now, but we have a lot of historical content that treats it as a rebel group. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, the Taliban is not a political party. It is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. That is the group's name. "Taliban" is an exonym. Your analogy is incorrect. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (modified from Keep at 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)) Afghanistan is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the hat notes are sufficient in my mind. It is similar to how French Republic redirects to France and not French Republics. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    This is not like other countries. We only recently started treating the Islamic Emirate as a government and not a terrorist organization. A lot of links are supposed to point to Taliban, which is an article about the organization and its history. There is relatively little coverage about the Taliban at Afghanistan because that article is about the country. What matters here is the incoming links and where they're supposed to point, and this redirect broke a lot of them. Editors are so eager to treat the Taliban as a government that they're ignoring the large amount of historical coverage we have treating them as a terrorist organization. That content hasn't disappeared. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere am I ignoring that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. My argument was not in any way related to that and does not hinge on that. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
My point is that there is a lot of more-relevant content at Taliban that we are ignoring by declaring the country article the primary topic. Please keep in mind that "Taliban" is an exonym and the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but it's called that quite infrequently in English compared to the use of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to refer to the nation under the control of the former. It is a truly regrettable situation, as it leads to much confusion. I do think that a redirect hat note for Taliban as well should be added to the page. It's a tough situation because I feel that your arguments all are based on correct information, but I also believe that it's unlikely someone will use that term to search for the Taliban. I'm trying to avoid making an argument from WP:NWFCTM because I feel like I'm approaching that. NGram is honestly not even useful here when it comes to something like WP:DPT because there is no real way to determine when someone searches for this term what they are intending to search for. I still !vote for keep, but I'll weaken it because your arguments are convincing. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the incoming links, the hat note that shows the previous Islamic Emirate should be enough. While it's impossible to remedy all incoming links a hat note is a not terrible medium. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not about remedying "all incoming links". It is about the fact that Afghanistan is the wrong target for most of the links already out there; WP:DPT tells us to disambiguate in such a situation. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for Disambiguation The Taliban is not a political party or group, but rather it is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The State and Political/Armed Group articles are only separate because it is fits an encyclopedia better to have some distinction. Because of this, the 1996-2001 and 2021-present state articles should be considered to be of the same organization, even if separated by time. Support for Disambiguation between Taliban, Afghanistan, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as is The base article has a history section. What is now Afghanistan, and major components thereof, has been an emirate several times, not just the two under the Taliban. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I get your point and although I agree with it at face value, there are a lot of pages out there that are currently linking to the "Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan" with intent to have the reader redirected to the page for the country. Doing this would break all those links; Leading the reader to a disambiguation page instead of the page for the actual country, and there are tons of these pages that will be broken if this were to pass. Besides, at the very top of the Afghanistan page, there is already a "mini-disambiguation" to help out readers that may have been looking for something else when searching for "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". ThatDohDude (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak support/Keep as is - I can see both Disambiguate working, but also just adding to the current text at the top of Afghanistan, "For the group currently in control of it, see Taliban." Wording can be worked on. WittyWidi (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Charlotte Marchandise-Franquet

I recommend deleting this redirect. There is no mention of Charlotte Marchandise-Franquet in the Rennes article, nor, apparently, has she ever been the mayor of that city. See also below for another form of her name with the same target. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WaggersTALK 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Charlotte Marchandise

I recommend deleting this redirect. There is no mention of Charlotte Marchandise in the Rennes article, nor, apparently, has she ever been the mayor of that city. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom WaggersTALK 14:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Quadratic extension

Retarget to Field extension#Extension field, which explains the topic in a more fundamental context rather than an application. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support retarget. The proposed new target is where I would have expected this to redirect to, assuming we don't have a separate article on the topic (which we currently don't). I have taken the liberty of fixing a reversal of the article title and section title in the proposed redirect, which I assume was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Technical point: in characteristic 2, an extension of degree 2 may not be generated by the extraction of a square root, though it is always given by adjoining a root of a quadratic (separable case). I don't object to the change of target, but it would be helpful to have this issue discussed. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    The proposed target does not seem to discuss the structure of quadratic extensions anyway, for any characteristic, so that's definitely a topic to expand the article on. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     17:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas parade

DELETE per WP:REDLINK; as determined from the discussion on the talk page Talk:Santa Claus parade, this article is about Santa Claus parades and not Christmas parades in general. Therefore the redirect is misleading, and should be redlinked to encourage creation of an article on the general topics. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

KEEP - At most only half of the parades discussed in the body of the Santa Claus parade article talks are actually named "Santa Claus parade". The rest have various names, including Thanksgiving Day parade, Christmas parade, etc., and it's not at all clear whether Santa Claus is even featured in them. Someone who looks up "Christmas parade" in Wikipedia ought to be redirected to the Santa Claus parade article which has at least some information about the concept rather being sent to a search page on which "Santa Claus parade" may or may not be the first entry listed. As far as thinking that seeing a redlink in an article will encourage someone to create a "Christmas parade" article, it's likely that the new article would contain much of the same information as the Santa Claus one since that one is so unfocused. Indyguy (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was determined on the talk page, that the article is about Santa parades and not Christmas parades in general. Thus, this redirect is inappropriate. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HISTORICAL

Retarget to Wikipedia:Project namespace#Historical pages, and remedy the less than fifty occurrences of this redirect (~45) that already exist. The proposed target is more closely associated with the notion of historical projectspace pages. WP:DEMOTE does not currently exist, and would as a fitting alternative as a shortcut for the current target (WP:Demoted exists, reasonably, as a redirect to Wikipedia:Former featured articles; WP:DEMOTED should be created and redirect there as well—however, that only currently has four linked occurrences, making it easily malleable as well). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate it can cover demoted policies, historical records, etc, by being a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Demoted could serve as a disambiguation page perhaps. However, projectspace shortcuts are by rarely unambiguous; such a solution is only implemented in select cases that are very likely to lead to severe confusion, and this does not seemingly meet that bar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:Historical could serve that then, and redirect HISTORICAL to it, as the shortcut is supposed to be allcaps. WP:DEMOTED/WP:Demoted would be a subcase of HISTORICAL, and not the other way round. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the order, I still disagree that a disambiguation page is appropriate per my statement above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Size

I sampled pages linking to the redirect. I found that users refer it to the other page Wikipedia:Article size. Furthermore, WP:SIZE currently redirects to that page. To avoid confusion, especially from those wanting to just lowercase "size" while typing, the "Size" should also redirect to "Wikipedia:Article size". Alternatively, it can become a disambiguation page, but I'm unsure whether it would be often referred to the "size of Wikipedia" itself. George Ho (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate makes sense. I refer to article size a few times a year, and the size of Wikipedia is more of a fun-to-know thing that doesn't help editors. But it's pretty neat and worth not hiding either. Remembering that I need to type ARTICLESIZE insteaf of SIZE uses extra brain cells I can't spare. If no disambig, SIZE should go to the article size page. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article size and remedy the 94 existing links to the page as necessary. This would be an arguable case for disambiguation given the broad and simple nature of the term. However, over 3500 extant links exist to WP:SIZE (making it unwise to change both due to the required labor and the trouble it would cause for this who use this regularly; unfortunately this seems to have developed a primacy and it is therefore too late for what would be ideal projectspace disambiguation in this case), and the upper and lowercase version should practically point to the same place. WP:SIZEWP and WP:WPSIZE would serve well as projectspace shortcuts for the current target. Moreover, a hatnote listing the current target (and anything else relevant enough) can be placed at WP:Article size as a navigational aid for those who may be looking for a different page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This seems like a very, very unlikely search term (note that one of the "HA"s has two "H"s). jp×g 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as very unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely search term at best --Lenticel (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom...hahahahahaha!...and everyone above me! I'm not sure people will search this, hee hee hee, up and-hahahahha-use a misspelling here! Ah! I can't stop laughing! Anyways, regards, SONIC678 17:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Kobbo massacre

5 unused redirects created by spammer and now-blocked sockpuppet Rastakwere going to the same target. (The grouping: Kobo incident, Kobbo incident, Zobel massacre, Kobo massacre, Kobbo massacre) Platonk (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Meleager of Gléagros of Gadara

Delete. Implausible typo. The redirect was created as a result of this piece of vandalism, which the editor who created the redirect utterly failed to recognise as nonsense for some reason. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, result of vandalism as stated. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_9&oldid=3892"