Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18

December 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2018.

Machines that can think

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 25#Machines that can think

LSD (video game

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. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LSD (video game → LSD: Dream Emulator (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

redirect exists with closing paren Naraht (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Note that LSD (video game) already exists. --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 21 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.

Christian

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. The fixing of all the links addressed some of the arguments by those that didn't want a disambiguation page, and that people can't agree on what the target should be especially tips the result towards disambiguation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian → Christians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

In a move discussion that I have just closed, there was consensus to move "Christian" to "Christians", but no consensus as to the fate of the resulting redirect. There are three possibilities that have been proposed:

Option 1: continue to have this term redirect to Christians

Option 2: retarget this term to Christianity on the grounds that many incoming links refer to things such as "Christian doctrines" or "Christian thought"

Option 3: move Christian (disambiguation) to "Christian" and disambiguate incoming links.

I am agnostic as to the outcome. Please forgive the pun. bd2412 T 16:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Option 1~~: There are 12,021 incoming links from other articles. If the redirect is changed, those links would need to be manually disambiguated, as Option 2 makes presumptions about their context, and Option 3 would result in a disambiguation page. Brad v🍁 17:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Option 3 per WP:NOPRIMARY, and as BD2412 has already handled about 2/3 of the incoming links. Brad v🍁 15:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - for me it's a toss-up for Option 1 and 2, but per Brady, the incoming links tips it in favor of Option 1. They are both equally fitting imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 since about half of the many incoming links are already in need of fixing; making a disambig page will help assure that they eventually all get looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - anybody volunteer to disambiguate all those links? ... anyone?... okay then, option 1. Red Slash 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I could do it. After all, I disambiguated 80,000 links when we moved New York. bd2412 T 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I have knocked it down to under 10,000 links. bd2412 T 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: As the RM originator I proposed redirecting to Christianity, but now the disambiguation page makes more sense to me, à la American. Per Dicklyon, this way the links will eventually get changed that need to be changed. Option 2 is still my second choice, since at least some incoming links will be using the adjective form of Christian, and users looking for Christians as a group of people are unlikely to be WP:ASTONISHED to end up at Christianity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 based on my argument at the RM discussion. feminist (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. It could easily refer to either Christians or Christianity as evidenced by the many links pointing to the wrong article; there's no clear primary topic. Choosing not to do something because it involves work is the wrong attitude to have. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of these links could also simply be removed per MOS:OVERLINK. Unless the article is explicitly about a Christian concept then there's no merit in linking to either article. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. If we follow only fundamental content principles, then Christianity is the undeniable primary topic (and so Option 2 is easily defensible), but on the other hand, it appears likely that readers searching for "Christian" might be looking for some of the other topics on the dab page. Moving this dab page to the base title is also a good default option as it will allow for gauging whether Christianity is a primary topic with respect to usage as well. Christians, however, is not the primary topic here: it was until now at this title only through the shere fluke of having grown around the content of an article about the word "Christian". All the !votes for Option 1 above are predicated on the opinion that any other option would involve fixing incoming links. With genuine respect to everyone, but this is frankly bonkers: we shouldn't let the reader-facing topic structure of the encyclopedia be determined by operational considerations of how, or whether, we would need to fix links; and keeping the redirect to "Christians" won't even accomplish sweeping the dust under the carpet as by now it's become clear that all the incoming links will need to be inspected and fixed regardless of the outcome. – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 seems to be the best fit. JC7V (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - the natural solution. Yes, work will be needed to disambiguate all the links, but nothing insuperable, and having a dab page will ensure they all get looked at eventually. --NSH001 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. After giving this some thought, I really don’t think I would even know which topic I’d be looking for if I looked up "Christian". In fact, I’m still a bit WP:SURPRISE-d that Christians and Christianity are two separate articles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment due to the importance of the term, the scale of incoming links, and arguably, an increasing tendency to make adjectives target dabs which may unfairly overshadow the noun here, it may be prudent to have more typical arguments per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The RM is Talk:Christians#Requested_move_25_November_2018. Aside: how does this compare with other religions? (I note Muslim is singular, not that any weight for a PT is to be put on such sets of articles, but just to inform). Widefox; talk 01:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The formal adjective for Islam is "Islamic", so one would properly refer to a person who is a Christian and a person who is a Muslim, but Christian theology and Islamic theology, or a Christian church and an Islamic mosque. Granted, "Muslim" is sometimes used as an adjective, but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It would make sense to move Muslim to Muslims on the same reasoning as Christian was moved to Christians. bd2412 T 02:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure (the separate Islam/Muslim is different from Christian, hence my hidden comment). My point being that the singular noun not be overlooked in the discussion, and the next religion that came to mind still has a singular title. Are the ~2K links you've dabbed representative of the 12k?, what's the target breakdown? Widefox; talk 12:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far the breakdown has been fairly diverse, although I would say that the ~2K links are not representative, because I have picked up patterns and then done runs to fix links specifically conforming with those patterns. For example, there were about 400 links to "Christian theology" (or "Christian doctrine" or "Christian thought", which both redirect there), for which I merely moved the brackets to target Christian theology. There were around a hundred describing radio stations with Christian radio formats, which I targeted to Christian radio. There were several hundred links in articles on books of the Bible to "the Christian Bible", which I sent to Christianity. There have been a handful intending Christian rock or various political parties calling themselves the Christian Party. There was one memorable link intending an association football player who I had to track down, and another one for a porn star who goes by Christian. The rest have had no overarching pattern. bd2412 T 13:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: I have now gone through about 6,000 links. In my last run, I targeted links intending Christian Era, Christian name, and Christian music, and found a few dozen of each. bd2412 T 00:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Final update: All incoming links to Christian from mainspace are fixed. bd2412 T 15:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 because the term "Christian" most often refers to people, objects and concepts associated with the faith of Christianity. Bermicourt (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, most flexible solution. Per Occam's razor no need for Option 3. Brandmeister^talk 15:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, those links that suffer from MOS:SPECIFICLINK like "Christian theology" above should be cleaned up, regardless. Jew goes to Jews not Judaism, and not the disambiguation first. And Muslim goes to Muslim. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is different than either of those two examples. Muslim is used as an adjective in some contexts more than others; hence Muslim attitudes but Islamic concepts, etc. And Jew is never used as an adjective in serious writing at all, to my knowledge. Christian, on the other hand, is often used this way, and we won't necessarily have an article on the specific topic (e.g. Christian concept). See also Buddhist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. People who search "Christian" are most likely looking for the article on Christians. For people searching for something else, the hatnote at the Christians article linking to the disambiguation page is sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. This gives the most flexible approach where users not familiar with the differences, can decide where they want to look if they are looking for Christian.The hatnote on Christians article does not help for that.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option 3~~ Option 2. ~~This provides more clarity, and users that are not familiar with Wikipedia should still have no trouble clicking one more link.~~ Awsomaw (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to BD2412's work on relinking a bunch of redirects, I think option 2 is better.Awsomaw (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador and Red Slash: - since your comments appear to be contingent on the volume of incoming links, I note that at this point I have fixed about 2/3 of those (Bradv has already taken note of this). I expect to finish the rest well before the end of the year (sooner, if others pitch in). I can report that at least one third of the links that I have addressed so far clearly should have been directed to Christianity, as they refer to the religion and its doctrines, propositions, theology, denominations, etc. Between 5-10% should have been addressed to other topics, including (so far), Christian radio, Christian music, Christian rock, Christian metal, Christian name, Christian (given name), Christian burial, Christian era, Christian (wrestler), and Christian XXX. bd2412 T 17:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. I'd probably have opposed the original move, but Christian shouldn't be a redirect somewhere else, so I'm going with the DAB page at this point. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 seems the best option, it allows those who click on the link to choose the appropriate target article in its logical context. If Option 3 is not the preferred consensus (though so far it seems to be), then I'd be willing to settle for Option 2, because 'Christianity' is an umbrella and general term which presumably covers all contexts, including Christians as people and Christian as an adjective. — Define Real (talk) 13:27, 27 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.

El Tigre (comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31#El Tigre (comics)

Chlorpyrifos-methyl

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. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorpyrifos-methyl → Chlorpyrifos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Chlorpyrifos-methyl is different from chlorpyrifos. Hence, the redirect is inappropriate. Leyo 12:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - under the assumption they are different, for which I cede to the knowledge of the nominator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:08, 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.

Talk:List of Google Easter eggs/Archive 1

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 Pages swapped. Closing early as this would have been a request I would have fulfilled if requested on WP:RMTR. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Google Easter eggs/Archive 1 → Talk:List of Google easter eggs/Archive 1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The article now called List of Google Easter eggs has been through a multitude of name changes and page splits and the related talk pages and archives were dragged along with it of course. In manually creating a new talk archive, I discovered (by the failure of {{Archive box}} to find the archive) that I had erroneously created the archive with the same currently incorrect capitalization as Talk:...easter...Archive_1. At some point, rather than moving Talk:...easter...Archive_1 to Talk:...Easter...Archive_1, a redirect was created from Talk:...Easter...Archive_1 to Talk:...easter...Archive_1. I am of the view that we should move Talk:...easter...Archive_1 to Talk:...Easter...Archive_1 and either redirect Talk:...easter...Archive_1 to it or delete it (it's an archive after all and hardly linked to). I considered the duty uncontroversial and was going to do it myself, but honestly haven't done a lot of page moving and wasn't sure what might break if I moved a page to a page that is currently redirecting to it(self) ... waits for head to stop spinning ... so am basically here to ask for someone more accustomed to these things to do the actual button pushing. Although the capitalization difference may seem innocuous, it isn't starkly obvious and so was the cause of template failure and the required creation of another redirect to fix the failure. It's just the wrong way around and pesky darn it! ;) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Gandt: This sounds like a request that could have been posted on WP:RMTR. Anyways, I’ll take care of this. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 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.

Human life begins at conception

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 Beginning of human personhood. Sandstein 19:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human life begins at conception → United States anti-abortion movement (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is this phrase exclusive to the United States, should it be retargeted to Anti-abortion movement, or deleted? Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly because the Anti-abortion movement article does not contain the phrase "human life begins at conception". Also, a quick Google search (using incognito mode) shows that most entities using this phrase as an anti-abortion argument are from the US. feminist (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this has a lengthy history, but consensus was against it as an article, and it's no longer useful as a redirect (it has no incoming mainspace links, and the slogan isn't mentioned in the target article). The similarly named Slogan:Human life begins at conception should also be removed, as should the counterpart redirect A woman's right to choose. (I'm not sure if those can be added to this RfD at this point, but I'd be happy to nominate them based on the results of this RfD.) Brad v🍁 01:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Beginning of human personhood. This concept is larger than the United States and even the abortion debate, as my suggested target describes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Beginning of human personhood per the above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Beginning of human personhood per above. Deryck C. 12:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Beginning of human personhood or Beginning of human personhood#Fertilization per above. Delete Slogan:Human life begins at conception as unlikely search term and covered by this redirect (and has split targets). Widefox; talk 12:53, 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.

List of fictional characters with heterochromia

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. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with heterochromia → Heterochromia iridum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list appears in the target, nor in any other article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with heterochromia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we can effectively infer a consensus that this content should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia: editors of the target decided as long ago as 2006 that such content didn't belong there, while editors at AFD decided this topic shouldn't be a separate article either. Nothing got merged in the eight years since the AFD, so there's no WP:ATT reason to retain the edit history either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the redirect is vague (WP:XY - no specific target implied), and the title does not suggest a reference to a specific work or set of works if an article were to be created (such an article would probably be a list of unrelated items - WP:NOTDIR). ComplexRational (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the most prominent fictional characters could be summarized in a "Heterochromia in fiction" section for the article, but it is getting towards WP:LISTCRUFT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 21 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.

Spicy meatball

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31#Spicy meatball

Brend Blend

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 Brent Crude. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brend Blend → Petroleum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Special:Permalink/6102436 § August 17 – Keep

Delete. I believe this is just an uncommon misspelling of Brent Blend, which does have a dedicated article at Brent Crude but this spelling doesn't seem worth preserving. Quuxplusone (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Brent Crude and mark {{R avoided double redirect}}/{{R from misspelling}} of Brent Blend. I see a few reasons to be hesitant about deleting: this redirect was created 14 years ago and gets several hits per day on average, and the misspelling appears in third-party printed sources on occasion [1]. I don't see any other strong case for deletion either: the redirect is not misleading, not offensive, not leading to confusion with anything else, etc. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per 59.149. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 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.