Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 11

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 article created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kailee Morgue → Music of Los Angeles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this person does seem to be a songwriter (their name appears in 3 other articles), this target article does not seem to mention them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the reason above, this should be a red link. --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I started an article on the subject. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thousnad sun → A Thousand Suns  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Improbable redirect to A Thousand Suns. Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible misspelling. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 12 November 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 no consensus. The main "Keep" argument is that the redirect is unambiguous. The main "Delete" argument is that the redirect is unlikely to be useful. Both arguments are reasonable and grounded in policy. Because arguments are numerically split both before and after relisting, I'm closing this as "no consensus". (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Girl Meets World (season 1) episodes → Girl Meets World (season 1) List of Girl Meets World episodes#Season 1 (2014–15)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect to the season 1 section of List of Girl Meets World episodes, and as it currently looks, a double redirect (first going to an existing redirect in Girl Meets World (season 1)). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and fix the double redirect). Unambiguous, harmless and takes the reader to the correct target. "Unnecessary" is a vague and confusing rationale for deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and fix) per Arms & Hearts. The redirect is plausible and unambiguous, therefore harmless so deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We have a standard format for the titles of articles that are lists of TV episodes which is clear and unambiguous. This redirect is redundant and adds nothing. Keeping it makes the argument that it's acceptable to set up any number of weirdly named redirects to lists of episodes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If those redirects help people find the article they are looking for then they are good and useful regardless of how "weird" editors familiar with out internal naming conventions might find them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. People are likelier to search without the parentheses, making this an unnecessary redirect. Flooded with them hundreds 07:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How likely people are to search with a different term is completely irrelevant to whether they will search with this term. There is no limit to the number of possible redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that deletion brings no benefit nor improvement of Wikipedia. Double redirect has been  Fixed. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This construction with a parenthetical in the middle is just too implausible as a useful redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 12 November 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sapiosexuality → OkCupid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: Sapiosexuality is an abstract, general concept in psychology, and certainly cannot simply be reduced or referred to a single online dating service! Hildeoc (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This redirect is the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination) in January this year which closed with a consensus to merge to OkCupid. Pinging the contributors to that discussion: @BD2412, Flyer22 Reborn, Indy beetle, Rusf10, TheValeyard, Knox490, Power~enwiki, Carrite, Galobtter, Malinaccier, Drmies, and Timtempleton:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or write an article per {{R from merge}} and the consensus of the AfD. Content related to this term is still present in the target article and I'm not seeing any reason why the redirect needs to be deleted in advance of article creation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or restore the stub. The term is covered within the target. It redirects here because OKCupid brought the term to prominence. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add more material on it in the OKCupid article or add a section on it at the Sexual attraction article for now. This is a redirect discussion; so I don't see how a redirect discussion can overturn the AfD result in terms of creating an article on the topic. Regarding that one source that Hildeoc pointed to, I suggest editors read my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination) and at Talk:Sapiosexuality. The topic is barely covered among academics, and it's not recognized as a sexual orientation by experts on sexual orientation. At the talk page, I stated, "Sexual orientation is not defined in terms of sexual attraction to intelligence. People are sexually attracted to a number of things about a person, as made clear at the Sexual attraction article, which is another place that the sapiosexuality topic can be covered. [One] can create an 'Intelligence' section there and include not only sources that use the term sapiosexuality with regard to sexual attraction to intelligence, but also those that don't use the word. The section can note the word sapiosexuality and how it came about, where it is mainly used (such as on dating sites), and include the aforementioned sapiosexuality study. Then the term sapiosexuality can redirect to that section. Out of all of the options presented so far, I think that is the best option." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or any of the above. A google search returns 942,000 hits. The #R gets 13 average daily views over the last 300 days. As a redirect, "it's cheap", and is clearly being used. It can possibly be turned into an article later. I'm for finding a better target, but ok with OKCupid until then.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert redirect to this stub. Why is the redirect to an article about a commercial product that used this term better than this referenced stub about the concept itself? --Bsherr (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bsherr: because the consensus of the deletion discussion mentioned above was that the referenced stub did not meet the WP:GNG, and most of the uses were in relation to OkCupid - that it is a commercial product is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I think it is relevant, but not in a pejorative way. Let's say the term doesn't meet GNG on its own, as that is possible. The only notability of the word is in connection with a commercial product? That's a strange situation, regardless of whether in connection with a commercial product, a person, etc. And it's even stranger that the word is not an object, but an idea (and even then, not a technological concept, but a social one). Can you think of another example like this? There's still an alternative to redirect to wikt:sapiosexual. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - responding to ping. My vote was to keep the article then and is still a keep. My earlier comments noted coverage in the Daily Mail: [[1]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And more coverage: [[2]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 12 November 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 as unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ONESENTENCENOTABLE → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions#Alternative view 2: Single sentences are not inherently insignificant coverage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wikipedia:1SN → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions#Alternative view 2: Single sentences are not inherently insignificant coverage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wikipedia:N1SENTENCE → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions#Alternative view 2: Single sentences are not inherently insignificant coverage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wikipedia:SIG1SENTENCE → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions#Alternative view 2: Single sentences are not inherently insignificant coverage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Unused shortcuts to short-lived contrarian and anti-consensus material in an essay, which was deleted as inappropriate "hijacking" of the essay back in 2015. There's nothing in the essay, which now is almost word-for-word as it was before hijacking, that would make an appropriate referent and anchor for these shortcut phrases (which don't mean anything to anyone but their creator).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 11 November 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. There's some disagreement on potential retargeting options, but regardless there is a clear consensus to keep these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can edit Wikipedia → Help:Editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anyone can edit → Help:Editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not useful. MB 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It should redirect to Wikipedia:Anyone can edit Wikipedia. As a link targeted at newcomers, that would be useful. Largoplazo (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction per Largoplazo. Useful to newcomers. feminist (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction per feminist, though I was at first sight going to say delete. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've added Anyone can edit to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question – isn't it generally a bad idea to have main-space directs into WP space? I thought we didn't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, the exceptions to WP:R2, and Category:Cross-namespace redirects for pertinent discussion and for the abundance of precedents for having redirects to information Project namespace articles. Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there are no uses of this redirect in main space, nor should there be. So get rid of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2018
• Delete. Indeed, there ought not to be cross-namespace redirects for this. Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget. These redirects have significant value for new and potential editors searching for information about editing Wikipedia and/or how to do it. The lack of links is completely irrelevant to their purpose, a purposes which is explicitly provided for in all the information pages about cross-namespace redirects. Indeed the very point of generally avoiding CNRs is that internal project-space pages are unhelpful to those not explicitly looking for them, but both current and proposed targets here are explicitly related to what people using these redirects are looking for - people who will probably not know about namespaces yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. or retarget. The first nomination was created just last month in October, so as a new CNR, that one's value is in question; however, I don't see anything wrong with keeping it since it is much like the second nomination, which has been around for over a decade and is "grandfather'd in". Keep both as an aid to new editors. Either Help:Editing (present target) or Wikipedia:Introduction is acceptable. As noted by IP 59.149.124.29 below, the target should have information about, or link to an explanation about, editing restrictions. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) 10:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these seem useful to me. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well known credo useful site moniker, worthy of blue-link. If crossnamespace redirects are such a concern that some find offense, re-target to land at Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit.--John Cline (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or retarget to Wikipedia#Openness if there are objections to having a cross-namespace redirect). All potential targets (Help:Editing, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia#Openness, Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit) are permanently semi-protected. On that ground, we should pick a target that explains to the reader who doesn't have an account (the most likely person to click a link or search for anyone can edit Wikipedia, since people with accounts already know that) why they can't actually edit the page they've arrived at. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, or retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. There is no apparent notable meaning of the phrase "anyone can edit" that does not relate to the editing of Wikimedia projects. bd2412 T 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should never have redirects like this out of mainspace unless the phrase itself has come into usage in sources (other than as a direct quotation) and always in reference to Wikipedia. Even in that case, it is better to write an actual article, as at Citation needed. Redirects like this are a WP:SELFREF problem and confuse readers about the distinction between the encyclopedia's content and internal, editor-facing materials. By way of comparison, even the Five pillars disambiguation page does not mention WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia except as a hatnote, despite it being central Wikipedian doctrine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet, aren't they still good search terms? If someone were to want to know about the term "anyone can edit Wikipedia", wouldn't they most likely be looking for those "editor-facing materials" rather than encyclopedic content? Isn't it actually hoped that by virtue of them landing on a project page rather than a mainspace target, they might actually consider registering and helping to improve Wikipedia? (not just articles but the project, as well) Just a thought. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the case against having an XNR and agree at least somewhat. But even then, why should we prefer deletion over retargeting to one of the mainspace targets mentioned above? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As you mentioned above, we should pick a target that explains to the reader who doesn't have an account. The only mainspace target I see mentioned is anchored on Jimbo's page, and there is no explanation there about protected pages and such. When they help readers, new and potential editors, then CNRs should be tolerated, specially old, long-term CNRs. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned another mainspace target Wikipedia#Openness above; it has several paragraphs about semi-protection, pending changes, etc. (To be fair, every time I read that link I have to look again and convince myself I didn't accidentally type Wikipedia:Openness.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh – did the same double take after reading your response. Don't think the target should be changed just because they're CNRs, though. The present target suffices. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Anyone can edit Wikipedia to Wikipedia#Openness to resolve the WP:CNR. Delete Anyone can edit. Without the clarification that it specifically refers to Wikipedia, it refers to Editing in general and I don't see a good target for that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:14, 24 November 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Largoplazo (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• O=C=C=C=C=C=O → Pentacarbon dioxide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An equals sign happens to look like the notation for a double covalent bond. Does that mean it makes sense to treat it as such in a redirect title for molecules that happen to be linear? In other words, it's only happenstance that some organic molecules can even be pseudo-notated this way; should we exploit this when no one would expect to be able to do the same for benzene? Largoplazo (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the question. I just noticed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 8#C=O=O=O=O=O=C and learned of the systematic SMILES method for doing just this. Sorry for the premature submission. Largoplazo (talk) 00:41, 11 November 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.