Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inomyabcs (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 23 July 2023 (→‎Wikipedia:CESSPIT: add comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2023.

Three faiths

Extremely vague, this should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's no less ambiguous than Three religions would be. As a note, although this is probably intended to point to the three major Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) which are often discussed together, it's also a valid translation of san jiao (Three teachings). – Scyrme (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're undermining your own point. If three religions was a set phrase in English to the point it had a similarly clear PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be created and maintained for exactly the same reason. — LlywelynII 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. I didn't say that "three faiths" was a set phrase or that it had a primary topic. The entire point was that "three religions" is not a phrase with a primary topic, and I don't think this is any different. I don't see how anything I said contradicts that. – Scyrme (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason for you to create makework like this for yourself but regardless of what the words could possibly theoretically mean, this is in reality the COMMON ENGLISH PRIMARYSENSE of the term—do any Googling on the topic—and should be maintained in part for native speakers and maintained in part precisely because ESL speakers might otherwise misapply it to the sanjiao or other topics. (Note that Scyrme glosses their own term the 'three teachings' because, no, "faith" isn't commonly used for Confucianism or Taoism in the English language.) — LlywelynII 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confucianism and daoism frequently are in-fact referred to as "religions" and "faiths" in English, even if that characterisation of these philosophies is also often disputed.
I mentioned san jiao because it is in-fact translated as "three faiths" in many English-language sources. eg. Emperor Wu Zhao and Her Pantheon of Devis, Divinities, and Dynastic Mothers (2015), p. 4; Problematizing Religious Freedom (2011), p. 118; Producing China in Southeast Asia (2017), p. 99.
You can argue that Abrahamic religions are the primary topic, fair enough, but "three faiths" is not my translation of san jiao, it is one of several that are used in existing literature. – Scyrme (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Three teachings per above discussion. Scyrme has presented evidence of it being an alternative translation, so this seems like a more plausible target to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can also support this retarget, as a second choice after deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Home Defence (BKA)

The redirect might cause confusion. There is no other Belarusian Home Defense with another acronym. Lucjim (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in throat feeling

Vague, could also refer to Dysphagia and possibly Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vague. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless evidence can be provided for it ever referring to something else. "Stuck in throat feeling" is most likely to refer to "the sensation of a lump in the throat" than anything else, particularly with the inclusion of the word "feeling", and it seems like a cheap and plausible way of phrasing the topic for someone who can't remember the proper terminology. Dysphagia seems like a reach; it's not merely a "feeling". Can it actually ever refer to Dysphagia? My understanding is that dysphagia is characterised by difficulty swallowing and things actually getting stuck in the throat/oesophagus, not a "feeling" of such (when you haven't actually swallowed anything). In-fact, the article states "dysphagia is distinguished from ... globus, which is the sensation of a lump in the throat". – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) is one of the possible symptoms of [Gastroesophageal reflux disease]. It can cause a sensation that food or liquid is stuck in the throat or chest." ([1]) "Some symptoms linked to dysphagia include: [...] Sensation of food stuck in throat or chest". ([2]). Not sure if these are fully RS,but it shows that some people describe dysphagia that way. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's misleading since it makes it sound like it's only a sensation. Regardless, searching around myself it seems you're right that people do describe it that way. In-fact, I found an academic case report using almost this exact phrase (differentiated only by hyphens): Patient concerns: A 55-year-old man was hospitalized with saliva-like vomitus, stuck-in-throat feeling of dysphagia, and weight loss. ([3]) Searching the exact phrase online yields other results like GERD and oesophageal spasms.
    Delete. Evidently it has been used to refer to other topics. Prefer deletion to disambiguation since this is phrased more like a search query than topic title; phrases in search-engine-ese can sometimes be helpful redirects (when they aren't ambiguous), but they aren't appropriate for disambiguation page titles. Second preference would be to turn Lump in the throat into a disambiguation page, and redirect this to that page. (It's currently a redirect to Globus pharyngis, which it treats as the primary topic.) – Scyrme (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Yousuf(cricket)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. (Redirect has no article space incoming links.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to cite WP:RDAB and suggest deletion? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: Did you have an edit conflict? [4] [5] Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I was viewing this revision. My apologies. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Othello(board game)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Othello (board game), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NS(A)

I've been looking through the target article, and I don't see any information about why this redirect targets this page, such as representing constants or something of the such. My guess is that this redirect is shorthand for "Nullspace (algebra)" (which currently does not exist), but there is no evidence in the target article of that nor any reasonable expectation any readers would know that otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umrani(khosa)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Umrani (khosa), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no incoming links to speak of.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go!(album)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Go! (album), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Hell(film)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no incoming links to speak of.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loire Valley(wine)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much in the way of incoming links to worry about. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian mythology

Deletion. Belarusian mythology is not connected with Slavic paganism, these are superstitions inscribed in Christian motives. There is Christ, the Virgin Mary, St. George and other saints, the church calendar is used. Maksim L. (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could write an article about this topic, by any chance? (Here are some relevant Google Scholar results.) Duckmather (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't create an article, my English level is low. The article is in Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian, but the topic is difficult to translate. The page has a history and the first versions were informative. Then they were removed and redirected. I can't rate the quality of the first versions.--Maksim L. (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't we restore the old article? It's unsourced (apparently it was supposed to be merged into Slavic paganism in 2017, but the relevant content was never added from what I can tell of the latter page's history), but it's much better than nothing, and I think we'd be able to use the sources I've found to back up at least part of it. Duckmather (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since Belarusian mythology is (also) an aspect of East Slavic mythology or multiple subjects called Slavic religion (disambiguation), at least until a new article is written.  —Michael Z. 17:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HTML padding

Not mentioned at target - this is a distinct concept that should not redirect here. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed target for the second redirect is not entirely clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear - there could also be padding of data in a record in a file, which isn't necessarily done for the exact same reasons as alignment of elements in data structures. Maybe Padding (computing) should be a disambiguation page? Or maybe we should use padding (disambiguation) for that? Guy Harris (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for the second redirect. Notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target Data structure alignment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental version

The instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music. I'm sure this is a better retarget to the page Instrumental. 176.33.242.229 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree that "instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music"; "version" wouldn't generally be used for a song or album which was instrumental to begin with. Remix defines "remix" very broadly and includes "additional versions of a song for use as bonus tracks or for a B-side" (emphasis added). The article also explicitly mentions "instrumental" mixes and tracks a number of times. Instrumental, however, doesn't appear to include any discussion of instrumental music in the context of alternative versions of music which originally had vocals. – Scyrme (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Joe Chamoun

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. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Without a mention with a reference, this redirect's existence is most likely a WP:BLP violation of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Titanic Five

Not mentioned in the target article. What is this supposed to represent??? Seems like some sort of made-up neologism. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOREFLIST

I feel like this is ambiguous with Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references. Perhaps disambiguation is in order? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old style pen

Disambiguate: Fountain pens aren't the only type of "[o]ld style pen"s. In fact, the quill is an "[o]ld style" writing tools whose shape can plausibly lead one to believe that it is an "[o]ld style pen". Silcox (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar (2009-10 film)

Implausible that anyone would search for the film in this way. ★Trekker (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CESSPIT

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Ok, so we can call AN/I all sorts of things: A swamp, a happy place, a time sink, whatever. But calling it a Cesspit (and if you don't know what one is, please check the link), is well nigh starting to get into civility territory. And honestly could be seen as a personal attack. Telling people that they are constituent parts of a cesspool, or even merely that they are in a cesspool? Not good. This just isn't what we should be doing. Delete all. jc37 13:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Added {{Old RfD list}} with the previous nominations for the redirect. Randi🦋TalkContribs 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with WJBscribe who said (in part) in a previous RfD: It's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously...We should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for two reasons. One, I've seen no actual evidence that this redirect confuses or demoralizes new users. I do not believe this to be true, and would want to see some evidence before accepting it. In the absence of that evidence, I'd like to err on the side of not policing this kind of dry humor. Two, can we please stop expanding the use of "civility" and (especially) "personal attacks" to include situations like this? It just normalizes actual incivility and personal attacks when we use those labels so frivolously. Kind of like how we've made the terms harassment, stalking, trolling, and gaslighting so meaningless. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "expandng" anything. To call a place where we want people to come together to discuss in good faith, a Cesspit, is not Civil, is not AGF, and yes, it's a personal attack on anyone who does contribute there. I can understand that you don't mind this, but I think it's fair to say that that has not been what we've seen concerning repeated uncivil things said by editors. You're fairly active there, have you not seen editors banned for repeatedly saying such things to, or about, others? My intent isn't to spoil fun, it's to try to add more light to a place that can already get dark. And as I said, this really isn't something we should be doing, or showing as an example of what we should be doing. - jc37 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I personally don't mind it; it's that it is simply stretching the definition of "incivility" past the breaking point to say that referring to ANI as a cesspit is uncivil to the people who post there. And it is even more fundamentally wrong to say doing so is a "personal attack", which by definition has to be directed at a specific person. You might as well say it's gaslighting. Or harassment.
    I also disagree that we want people to come together at ANI to discuss in good faith. It is a horrible place to try to resolve disagreements. Especially for new editors, who often get absolutely stomped on. It is not fit for purpose. It is dysfunctional. A better way to keep people from calling it a cesspit is not to worry about a few redirects (which have been around for 14 years, and have survived 2 previous RFD's very convincingly), but to do something useful to stop it from being a ... well, a cesspit. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if you have ideas on how to change the tone there, I think people would be happy to listen to your ideas. But calling the place a cesspit, does not sound liike a positive solution to anything, but, based upon what you are saying, honestly just becomes another contributory example... - jc37 19:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very difficult to effect change at AN/I. Recently I opened a discussion on the talk page about adding an explanation of how the board should function for the benefit of editors who haven't posted there before. It was ignored except to state that it would be impossible to add an explanation and that the board should be avoided.
    AN/I is Wikipedia's main forum for resolving behavioural disputes, so it's very disappointing that the level of apathy there has reached the point where even explaining what the forum is for is too difficult. On that basis I fully support even seemingly small attempts to improve its culture, including this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who was involved in the recent big drama, ANI is unquestionably a cesspit. Why would a redirect that describes perfectly the project page it leads to be deleted? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based off of your comments, it's therefore ok to call you a "cesspit contributor"? I'm not being hyperbolic. You're saying that "ANI is unquestionably a cesspit", when it's not. It's not a place of excrement. It's a virtual place for typing text, amongst many others on Wikipedia. What you are saying that what you find there is "like" that. And really, is that what we should be saying? Experienced editors set the tone. Is this the tone that you want to agree that we all should be setting? - jc37 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Floq above me, deleting the redirect won't do anything to the attitude at ANI. Trust me, it's been this way for a while (for years and years before I was even on enwiki), so it's unlikely to change anytime soon. Now, WP:HAPPYPLACE, on the other hand... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The first step in changing the culture of an institution is changing the language used. If no one calls ANI a cesspit, people will be less likely to treat it like one. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Removing the redirects won't magically make AN/I a bastion of civility, but in a small way it well help shift attitudes. Wikipedia shouldn't in any way encourage its main forum for the discussion of editors' behaviour to be considered a cesspit. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Floquenbeam. Let people think what they want. I have not experience at ANI, and can't comment on its civility levels, but I really can't see how this redirect could in any way constitute a personal attack. Saying "You do work at ANI, what do you know about civility?" is a personal attack. This is not. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the idea that this redirect somehow has a negative effect on ANI itself. In the eight years these redirects have existed, they've gotten less than 3,000 pageviews combined. If anything, the redirects are a positive–they point out an opinion that a lot of editors share about ANI, and one that needs to be acknowledged if anything is to improve at the venue. That it is done with dry humor is typical of the project, we don't have to take everything so seriously. Deleting this based on a "incivility" would be enforcing rules for rules' sake. I know those supporting deletion mean well, but trying to impose order on this back area of Wikipedia that is invisible to readers and rarely seen or used by editors seems pointless to me. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no evidence that these are confusing, and they align well with WP:SPADE. Characterizing a redirect to a project page a "personal attack" is a stretch that is so unrealistic it boggles the mind (and yes, if this comment is a personal attack, again see WP:SPADE). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't understand why anyone would think having this kind of POV redirect would be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Floquenbeam, who raises some excellent points on both the fact that without evidence of this discouraging users I do not think raising the possibility that some future hypothetical user might be demoralized by this redirect is enough to merit deletion, as well as their excellent point on stretching the term civility ever further out -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see this as a glass half-full or half-empty situation. If you look at the storage pool or the ANI board as an entirely negative experience, then it will engender those feelings. But I like the idea that the pool collects all the negative feelings while removing them from the wider body of Wikipedia, enabling everyone to keep trying to work together in a cleaner and more positive environment. Without the recourse to treat or remove to a different environment, the "excrement" would build in pockets in Wikipedia and make more of a mess. There is no reason why we as users can't assume that this is a positive association versus a negative one. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Bolanos

Delete. Amelia Bolanos does not and should not appear anywhere in the Football War article, per this 2012 discussion --Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here is a Sports Illustrated article on the Football War that clearly states, "The Amelia Bolaños story, shared in Kapuscinski's 1991 book The Soccer War, has since been debunked." Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch water

I came across this after reading a recent Slate article that mentioned multiple breweries making "ranch water (a cocktail typically made using tequila)". There is indeed such a product described at the target page, but it doesn't seem a good target if the cocktail doesn't necessarily use Topo Chico. The only other relevant usage I found is at Karbach Brewing Company, which claims a "Ranch Water Original". (Plenty of uses about water supplies for ranches, but I don't think we need to worry about that.) This seems like a good case for WP:REDLINK deletion. BDD (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB This is the opposite of REDYES. As you say KBC also exists and thus search will not work. Additionally we do need to worry about water supplies for ranches. DAB these 2 with Farm water. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that I suspect there are other companies among those we have articles on that make a ranch water product. We'd be highlighting the two just because that's where we found mentions. Search results would be more appropriate. I suppose you're right about the agricultural usage, though. My ideal would be an article about the type of drink with a hatnote to Farm water. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of Farm water.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greek Genocide

Delete: A page exists at Pontic Greek genocide (note the lower case g, and this redirect causes confusion D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CHEAP. If it were me, I would not have created the redirect in the first place, but since the redirect has been created, we can let it stand. Silcox (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfly" (song)

Delete: Quotation mark at the end make it an unlikely search term. Possibly created in error. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 10:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_21&oldid=1166801024"