Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

October 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 12, 2020.

Dipwad

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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is apparently an Australian-English pejorative, but it isn't mentioned anywhere on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft redirect per OcelotCreeper below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Also used in American English, it doesn't always have a single set definition. Deletion is probably best. Hog Farm Bacon 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary, which has a definition for dipwad. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create new section. This is the second such recent redirect request I can recall - an alternative name for idiot. So I looked up to see if there are others: [1] - so we have Dunder head, Dimwit, Dolt, etc. And we have individual Wikitionary definitions for these terms: dimwit, dolt, dunderhead, so they are legitimate alternative names. If we have a Wikipedia article for the concept of being stupid, then per WP:OTHERNAMES we should redirect alternative titles to the article we have on the concept, and where appropriate create a section on the alternative names. These are reasonable alternative names, and we can add more, such as fool, oaf, retard, bonehead, etc, to make consistent the random manner in which we currently treat these terms. At the moment we either create redirects, or articles: Retard (pejorative), or disamb pages in which we briefly define the main usage Bonehead which may not be the usage the reader is looking for, or disamb pages in which the term is not explained directly, but in which links to other articles may randomly take the reader to a page which may give some understanding of what it is they are looking for Oaf→Changeling and Fool→Foolishness/Stupidity. Finding Stupidity, I'm now thinking that we should in fact be redirecting Idiot to Stupidity and merging the content. So, Dipwad, and all the other terms relating to stupidity, should redirect to Stupidity and a section created there to discuss the various alternative names. As I have proposed this, I would be prepared to do the work if there is consensus. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a valid pejorative. If it's not mentioned in Idiot, then that should be remedied along with adding all the other pejoratives SilkTork mentioned, plus Eejit, Cooyon, Dunderhead, and Addlehead which were all nominated around the same time. Normal Op (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2020 (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.

Deejay

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 Disc jockey. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be retargeted to Disc jockey because the target was recently changed to that page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (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.

Developed

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, but retarget to Development nevertheless. Despite the affirmative consensus for retargeting, there's no support for the status quo, and we generally favor alternatives to deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargetting to the disambiguation page Development. Cheers, gnu57 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The adjective "developed" can apply to all sorts of things; including, perhaps most obviously, photographic films. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This adjective is common and too vague to deserve a specific redirect. Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The adjective is too vague and too common to deserve either a DAB or redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If users are searching for developed countries, they will type that in. I absolutely oppose the redirect proposed by nom. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2020 (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.

Jungle (2011 film)

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 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Vally was originally called "Jungle", but there is no mention about 2011 in that target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the earliest revisions of the article all refer to an expected release of 2011, but it seems to have slipped. Sometimes this can be a good reason to keep the wrong year redirects, it depends on how much publicity the original planned release date got but I've run out of time to investigate whether that is the case with this film or not right now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Two speculative elements make this a bit too far for my taste, though the speculation seems to have been appropriate and not WP:CRYSTAL-violating. We don't have Silent Valley (2011 film) or Jungle (2012 film), and I'd expect at least one of those to exist if this were plausible. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (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:TF

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common shortcuts like this should not target a proposed or failed proposal. They should be retargeted to an established guideline. I suggest retargeting this redirect to WP:TASKFORCE. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as per nom. "TF" is a plausible abbreviation for taskforce. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this does not have many uses, only one of the uses that are not mistakes or lists of shortcuts clearly intend to refer to the current target, and that one use intended Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers (WP:WPTF), which will fix shortly, not taskforces. We always need to be very conservative when retargetting shortcut redirects (as explained to the nominator on multiple previous occasions) and absent any clear need for something else to take this redirect and no evidence of confusion the harm caused by breaking the links that are currently correct outweighs any potential benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We DON'T have to be conservative on low-used shortcuts. We have to be conservative on high-used shortcuts. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we do have to be conservative about all shortcut redirects (especially as "high" and "low" use is very subjective - experience shows that Tavix and I have very different interpretations for example). That doesn't mean we should never change them, it just means we need to be extra careful as retargetting a shortcut can have serious consequences for existing and future uses and so changes must never be done lightly. I don't think that the change is beneficial in this case, but it is in some other cases. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. I agree that it does not make sense to have a shortcut like this pointing to a failed proposal that never became established when there are active targets where the shortcut can actually be useful moving forward. Both taskforces and Transformers fit that description, but taskforces have a wider appeal. Of course, hatnotes should be employed to clear up any potential confusion, but with how little usage the current target has I do believe any confusion would be negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since there are at least 3 options (Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers was the original target) although there aren't many links to it a DAB page would seem OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with creating a disambiguation page is then it wouldn't be useful as a shortcut for any of the potential pages since it would require you to click through the dab. It defeats the purpose of having a shortcut in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces per Tavix, with a hatnote to the Transformers project and maybe to the failed proposal. I agree we need to balance access against the way disambiguation dilutes shortcuts, and that failed proposals should usually have very low priority. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2020 (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 american south

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 Southern United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 13:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sure seems like this is more likely to refer to the Southern United States to me, although I am a US citizen, so maybe I'm biased. Hog Farm Bacon 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they had since been moved back to the South America article by a different IP from Rio (likely the same person). I reverted that since such a change from a long standing redirect shouldn’t be done unilaterally especially if it’s already been contested. It may be prudent to keep an eye out since possible that they will do this again.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they do do it again then we can semi-protect them (request at WP:RFPP). Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (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.

Michi Saagiig Anishinaabe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 20#Michi Saagiig Anishinaabe

Blox

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19#Blox

Unanimity criterion

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. It's been a month and two relists and still pretty deadlocked, gonna call it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search suggests that this phrase may be used in a number of contexts. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it is mentioned at the target: “Pareto efficiency, or unanimity” in a list of criteria is about the unanimity criterion. —JBL (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't know how meaningful this will be to readers not already familiar with the concept, but it's a pretty arcane one to begin with. The only use of the phrase on Wikipedia is Proportionality for Solid Coalitions, where it links this redirect. Yes, other systems could theoretically have a criterion of unanimity, but I'd need to see such ambiguity demonstrated before I'd worry. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd expect a more explicit mention if kept as-is. Unanimity is a different article, and within the article it describes different criteria for reaching unanimity in certain scenarios. -- Tavix (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I only know of the unanimity criterion as part of Arrow's theorem, and without other plausible targets I'm not willing to delete an accurate redirect for ambiguity. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:55, 20 October 2020 (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.

Sorcerer's World

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 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, the term is not mentioned in the current target article at all, second, it is a title of a notable book by Damien Broderick (mentioned for example in [2]), so perhaps it should be a disambig, if there even is a Superman-related article to include. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 12 October 2020 (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.

Nature of humankind

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 Human nature. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect is too narrow, the nature of humankind is hardly limited to Christian studies or even religious studies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 12 October 2020 (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.

Fjollträsk

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 17:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Word not found in target article. See talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing block evasion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Over at Swedish Wikipedia, we have sv:Fjollträsk and that seems OK. My Nordic languages are not as good as my Romance, but I can have a first stab at making this into a reasonable stub here at EN:WP. I have a Polish friend (not at WP) who speaks Norwegian and Swedish, so between us I am sure we can make a stab at this.... as for the French one, please hold off for now, then once I make my hamfisted first translation you can decide. Thanks. 94.21.10.252 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, please. I've translated this from the Swedish. I am the IP editor who said weak oppose above, but against my better judgement created an account. Not against Wikipedia: I get so much spam from using my real name, as I am extremely identifiable by my name, not because I am famous but because it is spelled a bit weirdly (my great-grandparents were illiterate). MagyarLinguist (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bogus article you created has now been removed & I will be adding a vandalism warning to your talk page in a moment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which indeed you have done. Now, usually, I edit under IP: I created this account as I had technical difficulties using IP to translate the Swedish into English without switching accounts, and my ISP also switched my IP address. I very much dislike you calling me "bogus" or my edits "bogus", I think you should WP:AGF. I have restored it to being an article: I never claimed it was a great article, I just translated it from the Swedish, checked the links, and so on. I really am quite offended by you thinking I am a vandal and calling me bogus. Many editors here and at WP:RM have suggested I create an account, and within six hours of my doing so I'm accused of vandalism, being bogus and so on? No way. MagyarLinguist (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed a few days ago due to an article written on the subject. However, due to ban evasion, I've reverted this creation and am now reopening the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's an article on the Swedish Wikipedia (which does look sourced) I don't see why it can't exist here though its not clear if it meets WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a GEOLAND issue; it's just a pejorative name for Stockholm. Apparently the consensus at the talk page there was not to include any information about this, so a redirect there is still inappropriate. On a side note, due to the socking issue, there's no need to preserve the history here, so if some form of keeping is decided, I'd still recommend deleting and then recreating, even in that case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect was created (as a redirect) in 2015 by User:Yzmo and the only different in content between then and today is the RFD template[3] so unless you're suggesting revision deletion which seems pointless there doesn't seem any need to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was the name in the article then? If not, why was there this redirect? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are not only used when articles mention the term, hence {{R without mention}}. No one has indicated that this term is ambiguous, so its creation may have been a good faith attempt to remove a redlink. —Ost (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If possible, the articles to which the redirects point should be edited to include a mention of the redirect title, keeping in mind verifiability and reliable sources." quote from {{R without mention}} if one cares to study that confusing topic more carefully. We are not (not) free to create redirects of words not mentioned in articles just because we find them cutesy-wootsy or (worse) because they appeal to some discriminatory prejudice or hatred that we think should be promoted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's really best to treat Category:Redirects to an article without mention as a maintenance category. (Addendum: I'm not sure I realized it actually is a maintenance category! That just reinforces my point, though.) --BDD (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to have people start leaving all kinds of unsourced names there that are as subjectively homophobic and sarcastically hateful as this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sarcasm is not helpful. Of course pejorative names should not be used without proper sourcing. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's proper sourcing that indicates this has nontrivial historical use, then adding it to the list and pointing as a {{R to list entry}} to the list seems reasonable. —Ost (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if there is not proper sourcing that indicates this has nontrivial historical use? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion then. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (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/2020_October_12&oldid=984777513"