Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 15

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 the first two, delete the last two. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wusta → Blue Nile (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wustá → Blue Nile (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Al Wusta Wilayah, Sudan → Blue Nile (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Al Wusţá Wilāyah, Sudan → Blue Nile (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I'm aware, Blue Nile state in Sudan isn't known as Al Wusta Wilayah (Central Region) but I could be wrong. There's no mention in the article, but the creation of these redirects pre-dates the formation of South Sudan. I suggest retargeting the first 2 to dab page Al Wusta, and a discussion about the other 2, and if necessary adding Blue Nile (state) to the Al Wusta disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget the first two per nominator. No opinion yet for the other two: up until a year ago, the target stated that Blue Nile state was known as Central state between 1991 and 1994. I am looking to see if there's any WP:RS verification of this but I haven't had any luck yet. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the last two Two weeks later, the strongest thing I've been able to find is a paper in a Scientific Research Publishing journal which did a study in Wad Madani, and alternates between saying that Wad Madani is in Gezira State and Central State [1]. So maybe it was Gezira State not Blue Nile State which used to be Central State, or Central State got split into multiple states, or something more complicated. In any case, we should delete the last two redirects for now to avoid being potentially misleading, and recreate them only when there's a proper target which has reliable-source verification of the situation. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2018 (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.

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. Deryck C. 10:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pleasure Elf → Hat Films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of redirect at target page. There is a Pleasureville, which is apparently an alternative name for Hat Films. Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a song off their Pleasureville album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned at target article, and since it’s not, it’s also too obscure to be a {{R avoided double redirect}} if Pleasureville (Hat Films album) (or Pleasureville (album)) existed; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 8#Redirects that formerly targeted OnlySee for similar consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2018 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Humbert Humphrey → Hubert Humphrey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not seem like a plausible typo. Humbert? No. No Humbert Humphrey. This redirect just seems unnecessary, IMO. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless he goes by Hum-Hum, this is not a likely variant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an error but it used in several reliable sources - two minutes searching found [2], [3], [4] and [5] - all independent of each other. This indicates that this is a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Reminds me of why I created Lada Gaga: The astounding amount of news sources that misspell "Lady Gaga" as "Lada Gaga". Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (Wow, I created that redirect over 6 years ago. Time flies.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible search term per the above uses. Smartyllama (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2018 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blue Wave 2018 → 2018 United States elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not an actual thing or a realistic search term. I went ahead and created a new redirect (2018 blue wave). However, Blue Wave 2018 should still be deleted for its unnecessary capitalization. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC); edited 04:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as mentioned in the article Aftermath section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the redirect should be "2018 blue wave" and should be redirecting to the aftermath section. The only person that's going to search for "Blue Wave 2018" is the one that started the article before it was redirected. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine per AngusWOOF. Google searches bring up a lot of independent results for this exact phrase so it is a very plausible search term. 2018 blue wave should be created as well as that is equally likely. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't recommend pointing this to any specific section in the article. "Blue wave" could easily be considered a synonym for the whole cycle of elections. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This phrase was and is still a very popular term used for the 2018 United States elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMcDermot (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely used term to describe the election, and the capitalisation manual of style isn't a reason to delete a redirect (or anything else). At best it's a reason to move the redirect but there's no point as the lower case version will be caught by the search functionality anyway. Hut 8.5 07:44, 19 December 2018 (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.

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:IA → Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I request that this redirect be retargeted to Wikipedia:Interface administrators for a number of reasons, including consistency with other redirects for user rights (eg WP:PC links to pending changes, not wikiproject pokemon) and the fact that the current target, WikiProject Iowa, has been tagged as inactive since 2017-09-03 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Interface administrators per nom. An alternative redirect for Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa is Wikipedia:IOWA, which is just two characters longer. One of the other shortcuts for Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa is Wikipedia:IOWA, which editors should use instead as it is just two characters longer. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Wikipedia:IOWA already points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa --DannyS712 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are many old links to this from when it targeted Wikipedia:Article development that should be fixed. That aside, many of the state postal code abbreviations do not go to their respective wikiprojects. A disambiguation like the one for WP:AL could be considered; however, as I tend to often point out, shortcuts may be ambiguous. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: If consensus emerges to retarget the redirect, I would convert all of the old shortcuts. Something along the lines of: Using AWB, "What links here" to WP:IA, replace WP:IA with WP:Iowa, but only when manual confirmed on a page by page basis. All links that are not part of a discussion (i.e. all links that were meant to go to the wikiproject) would be retargeted, but all links meant to point to the shortcut itself would be skipped. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a disambiguation page, given the fact that during this redirect’s 14 years of existence, it has targeted multiple different targets (Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles for about 2 years, Wikipedia:Article development for about 4 years [Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles was merged into Wikipedia:Article development], and it current target for about 8 years.) For that reason, link to this in edit summaries (which cannot be corrected) could be referring to any of the three targets this has targeted during its existence, and per the nominator, this shortcut could also refer to the recently-established Wikipedia:Interface administrators. Per this redirect’s history, having it targeting any one specific page could confuse readers looking at edit summaries if the redirect linked in the edit summary referred to a page different than the one it redirects to at present time. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject Iowa, and WT:Interface administrators, and WT:Article development have been notified of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect 1st choice, disambig 2nd - IA seems both more likely for intadmin (IOWA logical first choice for the project) but also significantly shorter than the next logical route. I can see the argument for a disambig, so that is a reasonable 2nd choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral On one side, the Interface admin page has had about 50x more page views that the Iowa project in the past month. On the other hand, every state project I know of uses the standard postal service abbreviation as a redirect, so that would be a good argument for the status quo. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Disambiguate per Godsy. Thanks for taking the time to count things up. -- Dolotta (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Steel1943. @Dolotta: Approximately 17/50 "WP:XX" state post code abbreviations redirect to their respective state. Probably 7/50 or so are disambiguation pages. The rest, i.e. about 25/50, redirect elsewhere. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom, but for a fully informed discussion I took a look at the page information for the two options, which I have included below. Also, in response to questions about retargeting, we can include a hatnote, but I don't think its as big of a deal given how few people go to the Iowa page currently. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between valid targets. feminist (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per DannyS712's stats. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Not necessarily based on statistics, but I can genuinely see at least two competing primary topics without a good reason for one to give way to another. Deryck C. 10:48, 28 December 2018 (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.

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) 02:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Elliott Frankl → 2006 Vaughan municipal election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Elliot Frankl → 2006 Vaughan municipal election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:XY problem. This was originally redirected to 2006 Vaughan municipal election, because that was the current election he was running in at the time of the infamous VaughanWatch editwar that got this turned into a permanently protected redirect. However, he's also run as a candidate in at least two other Vaughan municipal elections besides 2006 (and possibly more, since in both 2010 and 2014 our articles only kept track of the mayoral race and nobody got arsed to document the ward seats at all), so even in the unlikely event that somebody was actually searching for him there's no telling which election they would be looking for. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete that is his best turnout in the elections, but there's not much else to say about the candidate. Not mentioned in any detail. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've added the misspelling variant Elliot Frankl to this nomination. If the outcome of this discussion is something other than keep then {{R from misspelling}} and {{R avoided double redirect}} templates should be added to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'd forgotten about all the VaughnWatch drama, but it turns out that I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Frankl all those years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2018 (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.