Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 1

July 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2018.

Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 12#Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q

Oceania (continent)

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) feminist (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the redirect page Oceania (continent) redirects to Oceania instead of to Australia (continent). In many countries a continental model is taught that says Oceania is indeed a continent (as there is no univerally accepted definition of continent). People that type Oceania (continent) or most likely looking for the page Oceania, which is according to me a better redirect target. Also note that in regions where it is taught that Oceania is a continent, this continent includes most islands in the Pacific. The continent Australia as taught in regions where Oceania is considered a region, does not include the Pacific islands, but merely everything on the Australian continental shelf. Civciv5 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Australia (continent). The Oceania article at present is for the region, not the continent. There seems no particular reason to redirect an explicit pointer for (continent) to a region, instead of an article about the specific continent. This sounds like what you actually want is to rename the Australia (continent) article, but this is certainly not the forum for that. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, my view is that the Oceania page should be edited to display different views from different nations. Several nations in the world do consider Oceania the continent (which is identical to the region of Oceania). You argue that the continent of Oceania is the same as the continent of Australia but it is not, they describe different things. In nations where Australia is considered a continent only land on the the Australian plate is included, everything else does not belong to any continent at all according to that model. But in models where Oceania is the continent, it is identical to the region of Oceania, and includes nearly all islands in the Pacific. Civciv5 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Australia (continent). In full disclosure, I pointed the redirect to "Australia (continent)" in 2012 primarily so that changes to those links in other articles by those in favor of Oceania being considered a continent will still go to the correct Wikipedia article on the seventh continent. At that time, I didn't add a hatnote to explain the redirect, but did so today. (Civciv5 subsequently removed that hatnote, but it should remain until this redirect is changed to another article.) In most cases, a person wanting an article on the continent of Oceania will probably type in "Oceania", not "Oceania (continent)". In either case, a hatnote will now clarify which topic they want. English Wikipedia doesn't currently have a separate article on the idea of Oceania being a continent in other models, but that is also a discussion for another venue. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many countries where the educational system teaches that Oceania is a continent. But it is NOT identical to the continent of Australia. Those two are different things. The hatnote should be removed as it's confusing, it implies that Oceania as a continent is the same as Australia as a continent, but it isn't. They are not identical, they should have separate pages. There is already a page called Oceania (which is even categorized as a continent). It would be very simple to add a bit of information that states that Oceania is a continent according to several continental models taught in various nations. A person searching for 'Oceania (continent)' is most likely not looking for a page about a continent called Australia. Civciv5 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point entirely. When article mentions the continent of Australia, it links to Australia (continent). What happens when a user comes along and changes the word "Australia" to "Oceania", as I have seen many times, is that it now points to the wrong article. For a simple example, take the article Australia. It's first line reads "Australia (/əˈstreɪliə, ɒ-/ (About this sound listen)),[10][11] officially the Commonwealth of Australia,[12] is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands." If someone changes the link, now goes to the article about Oceania, not the Australian continent itself, as originally intended. And you also want to remove the hatnote on Oceania that points to Australia (continent). At least the hatnote on Australia (continent) that points to Oceania will get the few readers who type in "Oceania (continent)" to the right article, which you also wanted to remove. - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which users have been randomly changing Australia (continent) into Oceania (continent)? How many instances of this have occurred? Also, even if what you say is true, the hatnote is still incorrect as it implies Oceania can only be considered a region and not a continent. If there are that many users who randomly change 'Australia (continent)' into 'Oceania (continent)' to such an extent that a person is statistically more likely to click on such a link then one is to search for Oceania (continent), the hatnote should read 'For the region which is sometimes also considered a continent, see Oceania.' Civciv5 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened many times. If you really want to to know who and how often, you're welcome to search my substantial contributions for the many times I've reverted the change. Also, hatnotes exist to point people the the proper topic. If you want to change the wording of a specific hatnote, discuss it on that article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to request permission to edit the hatnote. Civciv5 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cowboy sex position

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep per criterion #2. I would advise the nominator to take the advice given. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cowboy sex position → Woman on top  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Cowboy (sex position) → Woman on top  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose deleting these pages. There is no mention of this at the redirect target and I once tried to edit the page of Woman on top to include a reference to the male same-sex equivalent but it was deleted and agreed it did not belong on the page. Civciv5 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That an edit you wanted in an article wasn't accepted does not give you license to remove redirects. This comes across as an exercise in WP:POINT, similar to your above request on Oceania. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the redirects are completely useless. They redirect to a page where no actual information about it is provided. Civciv5 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both redirects point to a page which describes what most people think the terms mean, which means they are not "completely useless". Tarl N. (discuss) 22:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that article is entirely about the heterosexual thing, there is absolutely no mention at all of the male same-sex equivalent and any attempt to add it to the page is reverted. Civciv5 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article doesn't include what you want it to include is no reason to delete the redirects. That's pretty clearly POINTy behaviour. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects should target a page that actually mentions something pertaining to them, this article does not. Since there is no page about the aforementioned subject, these redirects serve no purpose. Civciv5 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Woman on top article certainly does discuss the cowboy sex position, contrary to what Civciv5 asserts. If he/she has a different definition of the terms (perhaps thinking that "cowboy" restricts the terms to males only), that needs to be worked out on the article's talk page, a discussion I'm not going to involve myself in. Also, given Civciv5's posts here today, he/she should probably read WP:HATNOTE very carefully for a refersher on the usage of hatnotes in English Wikipedia, as he/she has advocated removing hatnotes in cases for which they are needed. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article continuously uses 'the man' and 'the woman', there is absolutely no same-sex reference. If it's not clear enough, the man in the article is not a 'cowboy' as he is not on top, have you ever seen a horse riding a human? Also, I do know what a hatnote is supposed to do, but in my view the hatnote you added to that page is confusing. That hatnote implies one of the following (or both): 1. There is no continent called Oceania (only a region) 2. A continent called Oceania is implicitly implied to exist, but it's identical to the continent of Australia or refers to the same thing. Civciv5 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote exists to get people to the right page, not to imply a topic is equal or not equal to another topic. Sometimes "cowboy position" is used in English regardless of whether the rider is male or female, and that's why it redirects there. But you want to delete the redirect, not change it to point to a better article. Again, I have to question your understanding of what hatnotes and redirects are for, as you're proposing their removal in the exact situations for which they are designed to be used all based on your interpretation of the definitions involved. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, would you vote in favor to grant me permission to edit either of these articles into a proper one (but likely a stub)? Civciv5 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't deny you permission, but again, you should discuss that on the respective articles' talk pages first. If you don't, your at risk of those articles being nominated for deletion as content forks, which is creating an article which basically covers the same subject as another. In both cases,as separate article is probably not needed. - BilCat (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles are the only option since any attempt to add content about the same-sex equivalent gets deleted by consensus. Civciv5 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing WP:LAWYER games, leveraging a clearly improper discussion on deleting redirects into what you will evidently use as "permission" to rewrite the redirects into what you want the redirects to say. You've already had your discussion on the articles in question, and found that your opinion is a minority of one. Now you are looking for ways to get around the fact that consensus is clearly against you. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will likely make one of two redirects into a proper article and have the other redirect link to that article instead sometime. Civciv5 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this RfD be closed with prejudice, since it's clear the proposer had no intention of actually removing the redirects - was simply looking for a way to get content in that was rejected elsewhere. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact have the intention of removing the redirects, but since it is likely to fail I I will likely make one of two redirects into a proper article and have the other redirect link to that article instead sometime. Civciv5 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proper action is for you to write the article you want, and then make the redirects into disambiguation pages. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lagostrophinae

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lagostrophinae → Banded hare-wallaby  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Delete. The subfamily is no longer considered monotypic (see here). As a result, redirecting to a lower taxon is no longer warranted. Keeping the redirect "until someone can write an article" would do more harm than good, as it is likely to confuse readers into thinking the taxon is still monophyletic. The redirect should therefore be deleted in accordance with WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2, "The redirect might cause confusion." Leptictidium (mt) 19:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taxon names should only redirect to a taxon at a different rank in two cases; monotypy (which is no longer the case here), or fossil species redirecting to fossil genera. In all other cases, either redirects should be deleted, or the redirect should be converted to an article. Myself and several others have been tagging taxon redirects to different ranks with {{R taxon with possibilities}} (or related templates that subcategorize). That's simply a stop gap tracking measure; taxon with possibilities redirects should still either be deleted or converted to articles; it's just easier to use the "taxon with possibilities" template than writing an article or bringing the redirect to RfD. Since Lagostrophinae has been brought to RfD, delete it. Plantdrew (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a taxonomy and I don't think we should insist that redirects mirror taxonomic relationships. If a title is a valid potential article and there exists another article on a related topic then by definition it is a valid redirect. I don't buy the argument that this is a "confusing" target because the current status of Lagastrophinae is succinctly explained in the lead of Banded hare-wallaby. But if that were the case, it could be just as easily solved by retargeting to the family (Macropodidae). The alternative is a red link which gives readers no information and no search hits. I hardly think that would be an improvement. – Joe (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've notified the creator of the redirect (User:Ucucha) of this discussion, as the nominator neglected to do so. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subfamilies, like taxons at other ranks, are definitely notable. It's much better to say "we don't have an article about this taxon" than to redirect to a lower taxon. As Leptictidium notes, redirecting higher to lower is only done when higher is monotypic, so this redirect wrongly tells users that the banded hare-wallaby is the only member of Lagostrophinae. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2034 Atlantic hurricane season

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated redirect Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, It is indeed unrelated to its current target and while the original target (Atlantic hurricane season) was better it's still about 15 years too soon. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Atlantic hurricane season doesn't mention future years, whereas Tropical cyclone naming does. Seems general practice is to point future seasons to the naming article rather than the regional season article, for up to a few years [1]. 2034 is definitely too far into the future though. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because no article discusses the 2034 season, and the names for that season aren't yet known. 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and later should similarly be deleted, but I could see an argument for keeping 2023 Atlantic hurricane season and earlier since those years are mentioned at the current target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is not mentioned in the target and over and above as said above the names are not known yet despite the fact they are on six lists that are rotated because when a storm creates excessive damage it is retired from the list so we will not know the actual list until after 2028. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was not the only redirect like this that was created. Bundling five other Rs without mention. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently there's another discussion over at July 3 on the five I just bundled. I've closed the other as a fork of this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. --B dash (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The NHC explicitly said they'll reuse the 2017 names for 2023, but storm names after 2023 May be retired. We are not sure on this. --219.76.18.78 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: concur with reasons above. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing after the slash, an unusable redirect B dash (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ to this nomination as they should be treated the same. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long term abuse cases are named as subpages of this (e.g. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson), and like in most such cases it is reasonable for people to look for an index at this title, and it redirects to that index. Between the two differently hyphenated forms over 130 people did so last year. There is nothing "unusable" about it all, and it has existed without any problems since creation in 2009. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 31#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ which resulted in a "keep" outcome for a similar redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf. These redirects are neither "unusable" nor unused. Unless they're causing some sort of harm (which hasn't been claimed), they appear to be purely helpful (and their deletion would be purely detrimental). —David Levy 16:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a sucker for keeping historical things here .... but how are any of these redirects useful ? .... No would is ever going to search for "Long term abuse/" are they ?, I know REDIRECTSARECHEAP and all that but there's cheap and there's abundantly useless. –Davey2010Talk 21:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf cited the page view statistics, which show that the redirects receive non-negligible levels of use. (Thryduulf and Amorymeltzer have outlined circumstances in which this occurs.). —David Levy 00:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what's worse .... The fact there are actual morons in this world that search for these useless redirects or the fact people here are wanting these kept ..... Hard one!. –Davey2010Talk 02:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010: Please keep things civil and do not make personal attacks like calling those who disagree with you "morons". Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies - Everyone who searches for these 2 redirects are clearly geniuses and clearly have high IQs, I mean I see the clear logic in having "/" at the end of a redirect ..... –Davey2010Talk 12:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what's worse .... The fact there are actual morons in this world that search for these useless redirects
    To whom are you referring? Hypothetical individuals who purposely seek out the redirects to see where they lead? That isn't a likely use case. As noted above and below, users reach them accidentally (either through mistyping or by following an incorrectly formatted link). This occurs with some frequency, so I don't understand your assertion that redirecting such individuals to the correct project page is a "useless" function.
    or the fact people here are wanting these kept
    I want them kept because they're demonstrably helpful and haven't been shown to be harmful. Were you (or someone else) to present evidence to the contrary, I certainly would reconsider my position. —David Levy 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the readers of this project, Exactly they'd be reaching it likely due to the search bar proving this term .... What does "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/" do that "Wikipedia:Long term abuse" doesn't ? ..... I genuinely cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would be searching for this redirect over the non-slash one ?...., Again I'm not seeing how these are helpful and or useful in this instance - It would be no different to creating WP:Wikipedia/ would it ? .... It makes 0 sense to me but whatever it is what it is. –Davey2010Talk 23:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the readers of this project, Exactly they'd be reaching it likely due to the search bar proving this term
    No one has asserted that the redirects should be retained for the benefit of anyone finding them via the search bar.
    What does "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/" do that "Wikipedia:Long term abuse" doesn't ?
    The inverse question ("What does 'Wikipedia:Long-term abuse' do that 'Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/' doesn't?") is more relevant. And the answer is "exist as a project page".
    It's helpful to redirect users to the existent project page that that seek when they accidentally arrive at the title of a nonexistent one instead.
    I genuinely cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would be searching for this redirect over the non-slash one ?
    I genuinely don't understand why you keep focusing on a hypothetical use case that no one claims exists and ignoring those that have actually been cited. Have you read Thryduulf's and Amorymeltzer's explanations? —David Levy 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't trace its beginnings, but if someone uses {{Sockpuppet category}} improperly, i.e. without providing a parameter, the lta link is to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/. AFAICT that wasn't present in the template when this page was created, but it's been there (via {{Sockpuppet category/confirmed}} for years. Seems useful to at least send the user somewhere helpful even if someone mucked up the template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are useful redirects and redirects are cheap. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, for one thing; it's not causing confusion or impairing something. And it's quite plausible. The normal case is that you're at a specific abuse case and decide to go to the main page by deleting the case-specific part of the URL, but you accidentally don't delete the slash. This is particularly likely if you do like I do, and use Ctrl+Backspace to delete words at a time; you might forget that a browser doesn't delete pre-word punctuation. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SelectUSA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 11#SelectUSA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_1&oldid=1036305953"