Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20

July 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 20, 2017.

Saraiki history

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 "Saraiki". Jax 0677 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saraiki history → Saraiki dialect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague term that could easily refer to several topics, neither of which is currently covered on wikipeda: the history of the language/dialect (current target), the history of the region (Saraikistan), the history of either the loose ethno-linguistic grouping that is nowadays the primary topic for the term Saraiki people, or the group of mainly Baloch tribes that were historically the primary bearers of that name. – Uanfala 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to users who've edited the redirect: Narutolovehinata5, Irfan sanwal saraiki. – Uanfala 10:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had forgotten to tag the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Saraiki people. Even though Saraiki has more options as a dab page, they seem to refer to the same group of people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC) updated 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Saraiki might be more useful. Wouldn't have to guess which Saraiki would it refer to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or retarget to Saraiki. The article on Saraiki dialect has a bit more "history" than Saraiki people does, but there really isn't a lot there. If not deletion, the only other logical action seems to be a retarget to the disambiguation page as it's ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to set index at Saraiki. They're clearly various facets of the same people group. Deryck C. 15:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Saraiki. Best of the available targets. WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2017 (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.

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)

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 Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) and re-target Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclobothra elegans is a possible synonym for 2 cases: Calochortus coeruleus and Calochortus elegans. Cyclobothra elegans should therefore be retargeted redirect to the first with a redirect-distinguish hatnote to the second. Disambiguation is not required per WP:2DABS, and Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) should be deleted. (Neither should redirect to C. elegans (disambiguation) which has dozens of entries and in this case impedes navigation rather than assists it). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation). Retarget Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. It's not "either would be fine" nor is it just matching the page that has elegans in the title. Cyclobothra elegans (Pursh) Benth. was published more than twenty years before Cyclobothra elegans Torr. (see dates here). Per the Principle of Priority, the name published by Torrey can not be used as a scientific name. In the extremely unlikely event that somebody is looking for Torrey's name, a hatnote will suffice. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cyclobothra elegans is an illegitimate name for Calochortus elegans, but it's been in the literature since 1857. What is Wikipedia's position on these things? Does Wikipedia include illegitimate synonyms because they are in the literature, or get rid of them because they are illegitimate? - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any position on that, as far as I know. Redirects for synonyms are OK, but aren't usually (in the big picture) created. When synonym redirects are created, they often include illegitimate names. I don't think I've seen anything deleted on the grounds of being illegitimate (but a redirect might get retargeted on priority grounds). Plantdrew (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. If the Plandrew's reasoning for why one of the targets is correct but the other is not is correct, that seems too complicated for a layperson to understand, especially if both have been in use, notwithstanding any principle of priority. Redirecting readers to one or the other seems unhelpful with context that a DAB could briefly provide, which seems like a good reason to not follow 2DABS strictly in this case.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate = Refine to C. elegans (disambiguation)#Order Liliales per Patar knight. Even though the principle of priority exists, neither species is most commonly referred to as cyclobothra elegans, so I agree with Patar knight that the naming situation is sufficiently nuanced to merit disambiguation. Deryck C. 17:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Retarget per Plantdrew. I trust the expert on this, and his explanation makes sense to me. Additionally, it's concise enough to include in a hatnote so laypeople can understand if need be. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Plantdew's suggestion to delete Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) and retarget Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't see much of a difference whether the disambiguation is carried out with hatnotes or by a separate dab page, but I'd follow Tavix in opting to support the choice of our plant redirects expert. – Uanfala 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2017 (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.

Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles

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. There seems three main camps through this discussion: those who advocate for keeping and/or retargeting to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, retarget to Wikipedia:Good articles, and delete. There are a couple others who want it kept in some form but don't really care where. Therefore, "deletion" is not an option as there isn't even a plurality in favor of deletion and the arguments for deletion are rather weak (and admittedly so by some in favor of deletion). At this point, it's a classic XNR debate. Would it be better to target these redirects to a place that somewhat discusses good articles in a mainspace article, or having XNRs to the project page that discusses good articles in depth? Those who advocate for a retarget to Wikipedia:Good articles give reasons why this is a better option than retargeting to English Wikipedia, whereas a lot of the arguments for keeping/retargeting to English Wikipedia don't delve into why that option is better than Wikipedia:Good articles. I sense that these arguments are mainly concerned with keeping it as opposed to deletion, and don't care as much what the target is, or mention a concern for having an XNR without explaining what the concern may be. Therefore, I'm closing this in favor of a retarget to Wikipedia:Good articles. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 9#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles was closed as:

Endorse deletion without prejudice to further discussion at RfD

Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with previous discussion. Deb (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deb: Note that the previous discussion deleted them because they were cross-namespace (article → Wikipedia), the new redirects are not cross-namespace so "per previous discussion" is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you mean, but I feel this discussion is a bit of a backdoor way of getting what the creator wanted (not that I doubt Cunard's motives). Deb (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality (where the current target is transcluded from) as this is an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic and there are no competing encyclopaedic uses I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat dubious. I'm not out-and-out opposed to this redirecting within the article space, but how likely is it that someone typing in "Good articles" wants to go to the section of the English Wikipedia article on article assessment? A secondary concern is that I think that the English Wikipedia article is massively self-indulgent, but I could probably look past that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete, after thinking on this for a couple of days, I don't see that these meet any of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. "Good article" is a term of art that is not widely used outside of this project, and I don't see that anyone who didn't already know about our good article programme would type it in expecting to get a section on Wikipedia quality assessments. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete. As I mentioned in the DRV, this does solve the original problem of cross-namespace redirects, but upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that it solves it in the wrong way. We should not be excessively introspective. Obviously, we should have some articles about ourselves; i.e. nobody is going to suggest that Wikipedia be deleted. But, the term Good Article, as used in this context, is really a wikipedia term of art, and as such, should be discussed in wiki-space. As I mentioned in the DRV, WP:Navel-gazing talks about this. Putting it another way, if WP:X redirects to Y, the problem is not that X is in wikispace; the problem is that Y is in mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Retarget as per Thryduulf. While this is a term of art on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is large enough and significant enough that its major terms of art are somewhat notable -- enough for a redir, in any case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping, but I have no strong feelings one way or another. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - After failed re-creations, somewhat unresponsive and inactive admins, multi-page deletion review, and another reincarnation, I think deleting all of the pages again would be less and less productive. If deleted, one or more of the pages can be re-created over and over. No opinion on which to target as long as all of them are retained as redirect pages to whatever target it is, mainspace or cross-namespace. However, due to WP:R#DELETE, one of which normally discourages cross-namespace targets, I guess we are left with nothing but mainspace as a chosen target. Whatever the target is, I would be pleased if all of them are "kept as is". However, I'm convinced by others that the current target may not be the best target possible. Even when not the best, not being the "best" target is not a good reason to delete them all. We can't violate WP:CRYSTAL by moving to a nonexistent topic or an article that doesn't mention "good article(s)", but we can predict that someday a movie studio can create a film called Good Articles... maybe someday. Nothing wrong with redirecting the pages to their one current target; let's treat it as stopgap until something else happens. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as proposed by Thryduulf Contra Lankiveil I suspect someone typing this in _is_ looking for our good articles (either WP:GA or WP:FA or some other notion of what a good article is on Wikipedia). As such, it seems like a reasonable redirect. (so basically per DES) Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some way because this term as an encyclopedic topic exclusively refers to the class of Wikipedia articles. feminist 16:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These redirects have between them several hundred incoming links from talk pages, and the intended target for most of them is probably WP:Good articles. I don't think this target is in anyway "bad" for the general reader as it provides enough context for them to know their whereabouts, and it also contains more relevant content than is found at the proposed article target. If the redirects absolutely must stay within article namespace then at least a hatnote should be added. – Uanfala 22:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, given that nothing has so far been presented that could suggest that it's a bad idea to retarget to Wikipedia:Good articles, I see no reason not to. – Uanfala 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all of them to Wikipedia:Good articles. This is useful for the reader who wants to find articles that are good, whether they mean ranked as GA via the current assessment system, or whether they mean articles that are better than average. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, but add a redirect hatnote for that section per Nyttend. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Wikipedia:Good articles. Assuming we accept that the reader is overwhelmingly likely to want to know about "good articles on Wikipedia", it makes more sense to have an XNR pointing them to the actual list of good articles, rather than an abstracted encyclopedic description of the good article process. Deryck C. 14:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Good articles" is not a term unique to Wikipedia, so the redirects are not currently appropriate. Oppose retargeting either: (i) to another Wikipedia-centric article; or (ii) in a manner that creates cross-namespaces redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2017 (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.

Yeti Trunk

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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeti Trunk → Chucklefish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: Yeti Trunk developed two games published by Chucklefish, but is not related to the company, and there is no information on it at target. Lordtobi (✉) 07:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 16:44, 20 July 2017 (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:PermissionOTRSOnly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 6#Template:PermissionOTRSOnly

New Yorke

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 11#New Yorke

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is

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 Wikipedia:Introduction#What is Wikipedia?. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Wikipedia:Introduction#What is Wikipedia?, the target of Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia. (So, for Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia, I recommend "keep"-ing it as is. Either way, all of these redirect's should probably target the same target.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is appropriate. They should be the same, and should go to something more introductory following the principle of least astonishment. I created one of those, not knowing of the others. In any case the introduction points to About Wikipedia for more, which points to Wikipedia:Five pillars in the second paragraph. ··gracefool 💬 03:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per nom. — JFG talk 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, a vote? ··gracefool 💬 11:34, 26 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_20&oldid=1088107108"