Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2021.

Draft:Untitled Okoye series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#Draft:Untitled Okoye series

Bobby Younkin[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. ✗plicit 02:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title redirects to Younkin's flying partner Jim LeRoy. Younkin is only briefly mentioned in LeRoy's article, and, to my knowledge, we don't usually redirect people's names to their friends' article just because of a brief mention. - ZLEA T\C 22:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is very little on him in that article. If it is kept, I think the redirect should go to the Jim Franklin article, as that has a little more info on him.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than this redirect there are 8 mentions on Enwiki of "Bobby Younkin" and Search therefore yields better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2021 (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.

Wuhan Flu Timeline[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. ✗plicit 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unlikely to be helpful and derogatory Bangalamania (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_1#New_Article:_Wuhan_Flu_Timeline -- dylx 16:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. While it's inaccurate and probably racist, it is also a plausible search term with an unambiguous target. Note that Wuhan flu redirects to COVID-19. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has gone through several moves and it will be useful to keep the history. The redirect's earliest date is January 24, 2020‎ (at a time when the usage of Wuhan or China was not "derogatory"), and I have been unable to find such an early date either in the target's history or intermediate redirects. Jay (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sadly – As much as I hate that this redirect exists (it's wrong in both ways – it's kinda racist and it's also not a flu), it is the former title of the page (I'd know, I'm the editor who moved this page away from this crappy title back in January). And, sadly, it is a plausible search term with an unambiguous target. Paintspot Infez (talk)
  • Keep but decapitalize "timeline" it is representative of what it was called in the early days before 2020 got underway (Wuhan flu, Wuhan pneumonia). And it isn't inaccurate like "China Flu/Virus" (that is so ambiguous, as there are several flus and even more viruses that could be refererd to). -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply does not get enough views for the "plausible search term" argument to make sense. On average it gets 1 per day, if it gets any. Also inaccurate even ignoring the "Wuhan" part since COVID-19 is not the flu.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as multiply implausible: odd capitalization plus doubly inaccurate name for the disease plus specifically searching for the article on the timeline is doubtful. Also the history mentioned above is not useful, it's just a bot repeatedly retargeting to avoid double-redirects as the target article got moved; there has never been any content or anything else of value to anyone at this title. --JBL (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except for the first entry in the history which says how the move happened, it is all about the bots. Jay (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay and Ivanvector's squirrel. This is a plausible search term and WP:RNEUTRAL applies. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ten views a month doesn't make it appear to be implausible, and it might in fact be plausible as a search term per above. WP:R#K4 might also apply. Sun8908 Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading: this doesn't take the reader to a timeline of the incidence of actual flu in Wuhan. More broadly, it's one thing to have a redirect for a bad word, it's a completely different thing to create redirects for the various phrases in which this word can appear (for those of you for whom the name "Neelix" rings a bell, think of all the redirects like Tit cancer). Yes, Wuhan flu exists, and rightly so (though it's a separate question if it's current target is the best: it has no mention of the term, and the only article on Wikipedia that does have such a mention is Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic). However, we don't have – and shouldn't have – redirects where "Wuhan flu" is substituted for "Covid 19" in any of the nearly 1,000 articles that have that in their titles. It doesn't even matter that the term is not neutral – a reader who stumbles upon this redirect may infer they'll be able to use similar search terms for related topics and when these searches fail they may incorrectly assume the topics aren't covered here. That's a basic principle: don't keep one vaguely (im)plausible redirect if you don't envisage at least the possibility of creation of all other redirects following the same pattern.
    And there's nothing to suggest keeping specifically this redirect. It doesn't any have meaningful history, and it was the title of an actual article for just over two hours in January 2020 [1] [2], so the usual "R from move" considerations no longer apply. – Uanfala (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to " we don't have redirects..." see note above by Ivanvector's squirrel on Wuhan flu redirecting to COVID-19. I assume you find fault with "flu" and not "Wuhan", because we have multiple "Wuhan virus", "Wuhan coronavirus", "Wuhan outbreak" redirects. And if flu is the issue, Influenza being a precursor to Pneumonia, we have "Wuhan pneumonia" and "Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus" redirects. Jay (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I haven't made my point clearly enougy. Yes, Wuhan flu exists (though it should probably not target what it targets now). However, no other redirect using this phrase exists. For example, we don't have Wuhan flu treatment, or Wuhan flu origins, or Wuhan flu pandemic or Wuhan flu in China. – Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the history is just a bunch of redirect stuff, so there isn't any content that needs to be preserved. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Redirects are not required to be neutral and readers are not required to be competent. feminist (+) 14:40, 29 May 2021 (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.

Blocking (Wikipedia)[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 Block. Nominally no consensus, defaulting to retarget over deletion as no one appears to be in favor of the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous cross namespace redirect, Blocking doesn't nessasarily refer to blocking accounts, it could also refer to blocking of the site, as is covered in Censorship of Wikipedia. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In general, XNRs to projectspace should only be for cases where the reader is likely looking for an internal Wikipedia page. That's not at all clear here. Block already has a selfref hatnote to WP:BLOCK and two other internal pages, which should be sufficient. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia administrators#Role? I think it's a more plausible target than Censorship of Wikipedia, considering the parentheses. Maybe the first redirect should target a different place to the second one? Or it might be just best to delete. J947's public account 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Next to be listed on Rfd should be Troll (Wikipedia). Jay (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Block. The hatnote there will help those looking for project space pages, Block (internet) will help some others and I've added a link to Internet censorship to help yet more people. I wouldn't object to targetting Block#Computing and adding a hatnote to the internet pages there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:20, 27 May 2021 (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.

Hitesh Makhija[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#Hitesh Makhija

Ye maaya chesave serial[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 05:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sufficient reasons for redirecting, the term is not even mentioned in the target article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are way too many redirects and most of them can be disposed off. Keeping one or even most likely search terms makes sense, but not all of them. Request the closing admin to take a decision on all these unnecessary redirects as well. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the sequel or spinoffs section anymore. Is this a real series? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure where you're looking -- Jaana Na Dil Se Door#Adaptations is still there on my end. When BEFOREing the article to convert to redirect, I found evidence it existed, just wasn't notable. As for the "way too many redirects" deletes...I'm not seeing it, per WP:CHEAP, and as Jay notes, many were made after this article was converted. Vaticidalprophet 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All of these redirects fall somewhere between useful and harmless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:06, 5 June 2021 (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.

Chyalothrin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Chyalothrin

Lunchtime O'Boulez[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, at Recurring jokes in Private Eye, or in any other article. This was raised by Martinevans123 at Talk:Private Eye#Cleaning up and merging two months ago with no response, so it doesn't look like there's any enthusiasm for adding a mention to the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This name was once in the article; and may be again. There is no other plausible target for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name is a musical variation of Lunchtime O'Booze per A Great, Silly Grin: The British Satire Boom Of The 1960s (p316). Such Eye usages are common in contemporary English and so a reader might reasonably want to know more. (continued page 94) Andrew🐉(talk) 20:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention anywhere, this redirect is actively unhelpful because it misleads people into thinking we have content that will enable them to know more, but instead they will just be left confused. If the content is readded to the article the redirect can easily be recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., I removed an extra # in the target above. There is no longer a "Regular columns" section; I assume "Notable columns" is its successor. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:21, 27 May 2021 (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.

Adversarial input[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 Adversary model. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Henke37 mentioned on the talk page, a redirect from "Adversarial Input" to "Randomized algorithm" doesn't make sense as the topic and the article's contents are unrelated to Adversarial Input. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Adversary model. Adversarial input is important in the analysis of randomized algorithms, so the redirect did make sense in that context. But there are are other fields that consider adversarial input, notably in machine learning. JBL's suggestion is a better alternative that encompasses its different uses. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Adversarial machine learning and also create a disambiguation page. A common meaning of "adversarial input" is adversarial inputs to machine learning models (Adversarial machine learning). Another meaning is adversarial inputs to an algorithm with worst-case complexity significantly worse than average-case (Algorithmic complexity attack). Analysis of online algorithms from an adversarial perspective (Adversary model) is also a possibility. I think adversarial machine learning by now has become the primary topic. A hatnote would probably be too long which is why I suggest creating a disambiguation page too. (If consensus ends up against adversarial machine learning being the primary topic, I would also support disambiguating directly.) In any case, it's quite clear that Randomized algorithm is not the right target. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (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.

Davis Corner, Virginia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific to Virginia, but leads to a disambiguation page which lists similarly named places in Canada and Wisconsin. The potential target Davis Corner, Stafford County, Virginia was deleted via AFD nine hours ago. ✗plicit 10:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a de facto G8 situation. That is to say, if that article hadn't just been deleted, an RFD would have probably retargeted this there; and, if so, it would be G8-eligible. Not saying this should necessarily be speedied, just that it's the same logic. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the dab page now lists Davis Corner as a link to Princess Anne County, Virginia, where the only information on Davis Corner is a wikilink to the deleted article. The article says Princess Anne County was rolled up into Virginia Beach, Virginia in the 1960s, and that article has no info on Davis Corner at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only content about Davis Corner, Virginia that seems to be anywhere on enwiki is a redlink. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 28 May 2021 (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.

Aidin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#Aidin

Guildford, Surrey (disambiguation)[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. ✗plicit 02:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible places called "Guildford, Surrey": primarily Guildford in Surrey, England; and also Guildford, British Columbia, in the city of Surrey. The first article, to which Guildford, Surrey redirects, has a hatnote to the other. This redirect should not target Guildford because that is not a disambiguation page, but it is not helpful in any way: a searcher is better off just going to the Guildford page and following the hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Misleads readers into thinking that we have a disambiguation page for these places when we do not. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, a hatnote is all that is needed here, indeed it's the correct solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not help anybody to find what they are looking for. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the hatnote serves the purpose of disambiguation (and so the (disambiguation) disambiguator is valid) this page has had no hits at all in 90 days, strongly suggesting it's not useful. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for this disambiguator per all above. Polyamorph (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1.1[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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that 1.1 refers to more often, in my opinion, is 1.1.1.1 (for example, Google search 1.1). I think disambiguation is appropriate here, but given the decent number of incoming links, I'd like to bring it up for discussion first. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:09, 27 May 2021 (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.

Left Front (India)[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 Left Front#India. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manasbose originally targeted this to Communism in India, about six months after an article with this title was deleted at AFD. After Arjun Madathiparambil Muraleedharan turned it back into an article, Pichpich re-redirected it, this time pointed to Left Front (West Bengal). Arjun re-articled it; Soman re-re-redirected it, now to a third target, the DAB page Left Front. I then refined to section Left Front § India for fairly obvious reasons. Arjun has now restored the Left Front (West Bengal) target. Rather than let this turn into an edit war, I'm bringing this to RFD, with the suggestion that we restore target Left Front § India. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Left Front § India. I do not know why Arjun changed the redirect target from Left Front#India to Left Front (West Bengal), which is the same target he had removed earlier. I would have preferred a retarget to Communism in India, but sadly that is an under-developed article and doesn't have a proper section on the coalitions or alliances. The amount of research done for the AFD is staggering and could be the seed on a fresh article Left Fronts in India on the different coalitions that have come about. Jay (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Left Front § India. The dab lists both Left Front (West Bengal) (twice until a moment ago) and Left Front (Tripura), neither of which seems to be a WP:PTOPIC over the other. There are a variety of other partial title matches also listed there. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note comment from Arjun here, which I think can be taken as a de facto !vote, although I've encouraged them to come participate here instead. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree on considering it a vote. The note was when he removed the redirect to Left Front (West Bengal). But then he did a U-turn and changed the redirect back from Left Front#India to Left Front (West Bengal). No explanation on that. And I see more redirect confusion happening in the last 24 hours. Jay (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Left Front § India - the rationale for the AfD still holds, and Left Front#India is the best option. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2021 (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.

Cecil bob[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3#Cecil bob

Malcolm Sex[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. ✗plicit 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article; creator has since been indeffed. Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 27 May 2021 (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.

Syrian Orthodox Church & Orthodox Syrian Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#Syrian Orthodox Church & Orthodox Syrian Church

95th Academy Awards[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. ✗plicit 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, about the 2023 (!) Oscars ceremony, undoubtedly fails WP:CRYSTAL- the 2022 Oscars are still a year away. Redirect is unwarranted this far out. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. As far as I can tell we have no specific information about anything beyond the 94th. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_27&oldid=1027114218"