Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2020.

Template:Campaignbox assassinations Northern Ireland Troules

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling in template namespace. No substantive links. No transclusions. Bsherr (talk) 23:52, 14 September 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.

Jerkass

[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not covered by the disambiguation. Consider retargeting to The Simpsons (season 10) or Homer Simpson, for "Jerkass Homer". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 14 September 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.

Craig Harris (IGN)

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced mention in the target, which identifies Harris as a character in a non-notable webcomic, doesn't strike me as enough for this redirect to be useful. The same Craig Harris is mentioned in some other articles, but most mentions are citations of reviews he's written, and none looks like a viable target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom to avoid WP:SURPRISES. If I were searching for this, I'd expect to get to a page about the author. If not that, then possibly the publication they work for (IGN in this case). I would not expect to arrive at some other author's page describing the search term as a webtoon character. Targetting IGN doesn't seem recommended as there is no mention there. -2pou (talk) 19:34, 21 September 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.

Child's Play (2012 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned in that article. There's also no 2012 film named "Child's Play". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as far as I can make out, the "possible remake" mooted in 2012 eventually became Child's Play (2019 film), but that's just connecting dots and there is no significant association of the 2019 film with 2012. The only event in the franchise with 2012 I've found is that Curse of Chucky began production and was filmed in 2012, but it was released the following year as always planned and it never seems to have been called "Child's Play" anyway. In unrelated things also sharing the name, there is a single episode of Ninjago (TV series) that gets only the following mention in the article: "The first six episodes have been more criticized due to their filler-like nature and overall aimless storytelling, yet the episode "Child's Play" remains a high point of critical praise." (and the article makes it unclear whether the episode in question was first aired in 2012 or 2013). Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -2pou (talk) 05:28, 15 September 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.

"A" - You're Adorable

[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 withdrawn. I was able to validate Sonic678's claim on third party search engines, so I'm withdrawing this. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of quotations instead of apostrophes and the use of a dash makes this redirect seem implausible. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly weak keep, the quotation marks are a plausible alternative way to write this, as it can vary between varieties and writers of English. The dash can also be seen as a plausible way to write the title. Regards, SONIC678 20:02, 14 September 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.

"A. R. Long"

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on whether or not A. R. Long, the version of this redirect without quotations, should exist, but either way, the quotations used in this redirect make this redirect unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 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.

Automotive SPICE

[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 ISO/IEC 15504#Acceptance of ISO/IEC 15504. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Automotive SPICE is somehow different from ISO/IEC 15504. In section "Acceptance of ISO/IEC 15504", there is "ISO/IEC 15504 is not available as free download, but must be purchased from the ISO. (Automotive SPICE, on the other hand, can be freely downloaded from the link supplied below.)" It seems that they are different Wolfch (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 14 September 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.

Michael Pollack

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely error, and the error in entering the name is the only reason why the redirect would be used.

The redirect had a total of 326 hits in calendar 2019, while the article Michael J. Pollard had a mean of 1416 daily hits. Anyway, we don't know how many of the 326 hits really wanted Pollard, or someone else.

There is a draft, Draft:Michael Pollack, that is currently in review. There was previously an article about a different non-notable person, deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack.

Useless redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am recommending acceptance of Draft:Michael Pollack, and am requesting deletion of the draft both in order to make room for the draft and because the redirect is unnecessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note also that I'm unclosing the NAC of this discussion, because shortly after the draft about the other Michael Pollack got moved into articlespace it was reverted back to draftspace as a creation of a sockpuppet — which also had the side effect of restoring the redirect back to Michael Pollard again. That said, I don't think the redirect is all that warranted — strictly speaking it isn't an error, as Pollard's infobox indicates that "Michael Pollack" was his real birth name, but the likelihood of anybody actually searching for Pollard by that name is so low as to be nonexistent, and thus doesn't warrant a "redirect from birth name". At this point the only plausible purpose the redirect serves is blocking the sock from bypassing AFC, and that can just as easily be accomplished with a pinch of WP:SALT if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate redirect, it is standard practice to redirect from birth names, pen names, nom-de-guerre, married names, single names, pseudonyms etc.. When I created the redirect I noted that, were an article to be created again, a hat-note would suffice. If the draft is published, then the redirect goes (no RfD needed I think), otherwise it should stay. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
"Redirect from real name" is only valuable if and when there's a substantive reason to believe that some non-trivial number of people might actually search for an article at that title. The even more obscure birth name of an already not-famous character actor isn't such a situation. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Rich Farmbrough and Joseph2302. A redirect from a birth name is much better than nothing. --Bsherr (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rich Farmborugh and Joseph2302. We don't create or keep redirects only if some arbitrarily set significant number of people would use it, we create/keep if it is plausibly useful and this utility outweighs any harm it causes. In this case there is evident utility and no harm while there is no conflicting article, so there is no justification for deletion prior to an article about someone else needing this title. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 15 September 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.

"713" Requests Permission to Land

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking thought reference for thus subject, it doesn't seem as though the quotes around the number in the titles are used in either Russian or respective English translations. Without such connection, it makes this title as a search term unlikely and WP:COSTLY due to the bizarre usage of quotes in the title. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 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.

"NUMBER and NUMBER" encoding

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#"NUMBER and NUMBER" encoding

Creation of India

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Creation of India

"3 June Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan"

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#"3 June Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan"

39 Boo

[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 without quote marks. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a plausible search term for its target considering it doesn't seem to be in sources, and it also doesn't seem that any other similar subjects have redirects such as these. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 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.

"10th New York National Guard"

[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 delete by Athaenara per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though the redirect is mentioned in the article, I'm not finding any connection between this redirect and its target via search engines, so suspecting this redirect is either WP:MADEUP or unverifiable WP:OR. Also, it's unclear why this redirect is in quotations and why its non-quotation version title, 10th New York National Guard, doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: per WP:G7-- I meant to create 10th New York National Guard, the quotations must have been added accidentally. However, with all due respect, it seems like you didn't look for a connection very hard-- see this, this, and this and this. Now granted, the latter two may be the same source, but Dyer's compendium is considered one of the more authoritative sources for materials in the area. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eddie891: With all due respect, without a reference at the name of the alternative title inline within the article, any effort to find such information can be rather difficult. With that being said, I'll see if I can get at least one of those external links you posted in the article, and get this nominated redirect tagged with {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was a bit harsh on my part-- It was easy for me to find sourcing but perhaps only because I have a good deal of experience in the area and knew what to look for. Anyways, thanks for tagging it and all the work you do. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:59, 14 September 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.

Kilo Highway

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#Kilo Highway

Thriller-drama 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY issue. Between Thriller film and Drama (film and television) (and its incoming redirect Drama film), there is no single target which this redirect could target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 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.

Thriller drama

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY issue. Between Thriller (genre), Thriller film, Drama, and Drama (film and television) (and its incoming redirect Drama (genre)), there is no single target which this redirect could target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 14 September 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.

Seymour Schwartz

[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 Seymour I. Schwartz. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the redirect should be replaced with a disambiguation page. It currently redirects to an alter ego to the entertainer Rucka Rucka Ali rather than Dr. Seymour I. Schwartz who has that exact name. There is not even a mention of the doctor at the entertainer's page, which should be done as a minimum no matter the outcome of this discussion (IMHO). Royalbroil 12:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 14 September 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.

Clergy sex abuse scandal

[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. I'll add a hatnote for Sexual abuse#Positions of power. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not synonymous, as "clergy" without any specification is ambiguous. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - At this point I'm not sure where to retarget. Such a redirect is grossly inaccurate and misleading. There are more than a few documented cases of non-Catholic clergy who have sexually abused. The redirect makes the assumption that all clergy sex abuse cases are in the Catholic church, which is not only inaccurate, it's prejudicial. Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Sexual abuse#Positions of power. Sundayclose (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: No evident ambiguity??? Are you denying that non-Catholic clergy have sexually abused? Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. All I'm saying is that no articles on such abuse have been presented to prove that the term is ambiguous enough to deny the current target from its current position as the primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That argument evades the issue that not all clergy sex abuse is Catholic clergy sex abuse. I quickly found one article (Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse) and there could be others now and/or in the future. There are publicized cases involving other denominations. The fact that no one has written an article on them is not a valid basis for a misleading redirect. The reality is, no specific religion or denomination should be a target of the redirect because it is misleading. Another possibility is to redirect to Religious abuse, which is a more general concept but at least not misleading; that article contains links to related sex abuse articles. If an appropriate target can't be found, the redirect page should be deleted. So if "retarget" is not an option my !vote is delete. Keeping a misleading redirect because there's no other target is not necessary and is unencyclopedic. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, but add a hatnote. On the first five pages of google 100% of the results for Clergy "sex abuse scandal"|"sexual abuse scandal" -Wikipedia are about the Catholic church. This is not denying that clergy from other religions have engaged in sexual abuse, simply reflecting the reality that nearly every who uses this search term is looking for information about the scandal of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. It doesn't matter why that is, just that it is, but "clergy" is not a term widely used to describe a specific group of people in the Jehovah's Witness faith (and it may even be incorrect to do so, I'm not sure) so anyone looking for information about sexual abuse in the context of that religion would be very unlikely to search using that word. Another factor to consider is that sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has been a much bigger scandal than has abuse by practictioners of other faiths. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree that we maintain an inaccurate and prejudicial redirect just because of the particular terminology used by any other denomination, as well the fact that just because no one has written an article on other denominations is not a valid basis for a misleading redirect. Wikipedia should not be perpetuating such bias just because its editors haven't gotten around to writing or completing articles. That's unencyclopedic and would not pass muster in a quality encyclopedia with professional editorial control. Sundayclose (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't have articles about other denominations is not relevant. If we did though it would be very significantly less likely that someone using this search term would be looking for them than they would be for the current target and so it would still be appropriate - the other articles would be linked in a hatnote (either directly for via a disambiguation page depending how many there were). This redirect is not incorrect (the target is about a sex abuse scandal), and whether it is or is not prejudicial is not relevant (see WP:RNEUTRAL) given that it is just reflecting the reality that almost everybody using this search term is looking for the current target. Literally the only two things we are concerned about here are whether the redirect is a useful search term and, if so, whether the current target is the best one. The answer to the first question is a clear yes, based on the stats and the huge number of hits on google for the exact phrase. The answer to the second question is also yes, given that the current target matches the subject of every single one of the top 50+ google hits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 17 September 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.

Belgians in the Congo

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#Belgians in the Congo

Junior Art Director

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This specific phrase is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 14 September 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.

Minneapolis Riots

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#Minneapolis Riots

Rakshak (2016 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was never confirmed as a potential title by the film's crew. This source merely speculates. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: "Speculates" = "could have been possible". And since a source states the target subject could have had this name, I see the helpfulness in retaining this redirect, as long as the redirect isn't ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 14 September 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_September_14&oldid=1157250816"