Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7

February 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2019.

Desistence

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, misleading redirect. There is desistence of gender dysphoria (which is not the same as redirect target detransition), but there's just as well desistence of ADHD symptoms. I could find no indication that detransition is anywhere close to the primary context, certainly not an alternative name for the same concept. Huon (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral (Wiktionary Redirect?): I'm only familiar with the term used as a near-synonym for detransition. I see now Google shows a variety of results for the term. My goal was to help users find the detransition article if they're only familiar with the less-common desistance term. Please note this redirect was created also for the more proper spelling with an "a" (Desistance). I've now attempted to create an RfD there, with a link to this discussion (diff), but I don't see it listed (outcome), perhaps it needs time to propagate? I'm neutral on options: keep, delete, disambiguate, or redirect to Wikitionary (possibly the best option, is that allowed?). A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2019 (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.

Correct knowledge

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Correct knowledge" in target article. Search results are generally not about Vidya. Possible POV. Certes (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found the phrase in an old version of a duplicate article Vidyā, but I still don't think it justifies the redirect. Certes (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as impossibly vague. There are all sorts page that refer to "correct knowledge" but none significantly or as a term of art that I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unlikely that a native English speaker would type this phrase in the search box, but it seems to me very plausible that an ESL speaker could do so. I'd assume they were looking for an article about how scholars evaluate the truth of a proposition. In other words, I think this search term should point to philosophical articles about truth values. Consider whether the outcome could be, for example, disambiguate between Validity (logic), Truth table and List of fallacies?—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2019 (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.

Mineralogical Magazine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Mineralogical Magazine

Book Your Own Fucking Life

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Book Your Own Fucking Life

Rugby league players

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 redirects with no space, keep the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are legacy redirects, that does not link to any current article(s), and it is highly-unlikely that a user would ever type these into the “search Wikipedia” text box... DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:06, 7 February 2019 (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.

DETERMINEPRIMARY

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, but the user creating the redirect forgot namespace in page title and redirect target. Then they realized their mistake creating WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY with the namespaces. Now stands as a problematic cross-namespace redirect PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have speedied it under G6 (obviously created in error) had there not been an intervening history of it being targetted at Word-sense disambiguation. The principle reason why article to project space redirects are kept is if they are useful for new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet, but determination of primary topic is not an example of such. It's also not a page that editors need to find in a hurry nor are there large numbers of links that would be broken. While the project space page would do well to have a link to the article word-sense disambiguation, the reciprocal is not true beyond the existing hatnote and the article doesn't need an allcaps shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2019 (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.

Template:IBA team

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, at least while the redirect has transclusions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not using the "Infobox" prefix naming convention and too similar to Template:IBA teams. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominated redirect has several transclusions. Recommend removing all transclusions of this redirect prior to any further nominations of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this necessary for an RfD of a template redirects when it is considered a bad idea for a TfD? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Because if a redirect is deleted when it has transclusions, then you break transclusions. I'm assuming that you are referring to someone orphaning a template in an effort to call a template useless enough to delete ... which is the opposite of why transcluded redirects should be bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2019 (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.

Template:ABA team

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 Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not using the "Infobox" prefix naming convention and too similar to Template:ABA Teams. Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominated redirect has several transclusions. Recommend removing all transclusions of this redirect prior to any further nominations of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this necessary for an RfD of a template redirects when it is considered a bad idea for a TfD? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Because if a redirect is deleted when it has transclusions, then you break transclusions. I'm assuming that you are referring to someone orphaning a template in an effort to call a template useless enough to delete ... which is the opposite of why transcluded redirects should be bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2019 (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.

Intel Core gen10 (TigerLake)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - set of bad spellings, redundant disambiguation parentheses, spurious bracket Intel Core gen3 (IvyBridge)), implausible typos, and non-useful uncommon "genX" titled redirects which are only used by this unsourced orphan article (also up for deletion) by the same single editor. WP:OR at it's best from a WP:SPA editor. Widefox; talk 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The creator of these redirects is only a SPA as much as these are her only edits. It looks like someone created an account just to create redirects, but is otherwise unfamiliar with Wikipedia. A redirect like Intel Core gen1 would be useful. Since they do not currently exist, autocomplete means that these nominated redirects can aid searching. feminist (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 17:40, 7 February 2019 (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.

Small coal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Small coal

Austrianism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Austrianism

Cat;att

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These redirects contain a typo. The equivalent redirects with a colon instead of a semi-colon are not nominated. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: both of these were nominated 3 months ago at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 5#Cat;att, which closed as no consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nothing has changed since the last discussion where Stephen and Nyttend explained how these redirects were useful (WP:R#KEEP point 5) and none of UnitedStatesian, Uanfala or Headbomb actually refuted this - just asserting that it didn't matter they were useful to other people because they don't find them useful enough (which is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You misconstrue my previous argument for deletion; it was based on the widespread consensus, established in an RfC, against cross-namespace shortcuts that do not follow the CAT: or MOS: format. Even if a single user who can't reliably use the shift key finds them useful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are misspellings of the redirects CAT:ATT and CAT:SPAM. As pointed out already, these redirects are of a type that has been very strongly deprecated since the 2014 RfC. If they were nominated as well, there would be good reasons for deletion and one can easily imagine a "no consensus" outcome as they are presumably useful to some editors and they follow the expected pattern (even if this pattern is now strongly discouraged). But what we have here isn't even that: it's a typo of a miscapitalisation of a redirect of a strongly discouraged type: that's several degrees of separation beyond what should be considered reasonable. Yes, there might be one (or more) editors who find those redirects useful, but then the same can be said about any conceivable typo out there. The conceivable marginal utility of these redirects to an editor doesn't outweigh the harm they do in sending readers from the mainspace into the deep dredges of our backrooms. The article namespace is for the readers, not the editors. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and one more thing: look at the targets of those redirects: if there's any place on wikipedia you wouldn't want to send readers in any way possible, it is the handy list of not-yet-deleted attack pages. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (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.

Same (album)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any albums (at least with articles) titled "Same" to redirect this to. I can't figure out why, in any case, it would redirect to Eponym. There might be some long story but I assume it was result of a page move/mistake somewhere along the way. Unless there is a better target, I believe it should be terminated. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In some music catalogs, eponymous music albums (e.g. "The Beatles (album)") are named "Same". i see no use in this redirect, but maybe it prevents people from using that title (?) E-Kartoffel (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (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.

Fat body

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 deleted per G6 to allow recreation. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete to make room for an article on this subject (I wish to be credited as the page author). The new content is being prepared in my sandbox. — Yerpo Eh? 10:09, 7 February 2019 (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.

0.99999999999999999999999999999999

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and unlikely to be searched and used. No one will add thirty-two "9"s to search for 0.999... B dash (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With 91 hits last year it's clear the the nominator is incorrect - this is not implausible and people do use it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf's stats. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you persist in making life harder for ever increasing numbers of people? What benefit could possibly be gained by deleting something this many people use? Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The target received 159,095 pageviews last year, showing that people (and others that generate hits) are finding the target just fine without this redirect. WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The number of people using other search terms is not relevant in the slightest, what is relevant is that nearly 100 people used this redirect last year to find the target article, which means that deletion would inconvenience around that many people without benefiting anybody - a very clear net negative to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unhelpful pollution of the searchbox when "0.99" is entered (which is almost certainly the cause of last year's hit count). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've repeatedly explained (and shouldn't need to keep explaining) the search box is far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia content. If people use this when looking for the target (and what else would they be looking for) then it hasn't harmed anything and there are so few other targets suggested that it's not hindering anybody finding anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as at best superfluous and so potentially misleading: if a reader starts typing 0.99 in the search box they'll be presented with two options: one is the article 0.999.., the other is this redirect. It's conceivable a user could land on the article first but then wonder what that mysterious article was at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 - it will be disappointing to be sent right back where they started. And if it's not for the search box, how else would a reader chance upon this redirect? I don't really imagine people typing in a wikipedia URL ending in 31 nines. – Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misleading. 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 is not 0.999... and is not discussed in the target article. Huon (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and implausible. Most searches involving a string of nines, as said above, should quickly lead to 0.999... before 32 nines are typed. It is also worth noting that similar redirects (0.9999999999999999999999999999999, 0.999999999999999999999999999999, 0.99999999999999999999999999999, etc.) also exist; where should we draw the line? ComplexRational (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, please understand that search suggestions are only a thing for some (not all) methods people use to find Wikipedia content. The search box is the most likely place they would chance across this browsing randomly, but they could be looking for this specifically, they could follow a link from another site, etc. It doesn't matter to us how someone finds a redirect (we have no way of knowing) only that they do use it - which we have abundant evidence of. The target article explains that 0.99999999999999999999999999999 is not identical to 0.999... so that argument against it is wrong too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ComplexRational: Agree. Then how many "9"s after the decimal dot at most should be kept? 10, 20, 30, etc. --B dash (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The number of nines is arbitrary making the redirect implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:21, 11 February 2019 (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.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Pacific Shipping, Inc.,

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect page for Pacific Shipping, Inc. I had thought this page had been deleted when I moved the page last month. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (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/2019_February_7&oldid=1078353574"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.