Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2023.

The Academy at Lincoln

[edit]

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 Guilford County Schools. Jay 💬 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting to delete, since there is no mention of this topic at the target page. Looking at the redirect's history, there has been some dispute about it in the past, with attempts to create an article. The school does seem to exist, with a website at https://www.gcsnc.com/Academy_at_Lincoln. Alternatively, a mention of the institution could be added into the destination article, referencing the school's website (in which case it should also be added at Lincoln Academy, from which I just deleted the corresponding entry for failure of WP:DABMENTION). But I think an article about a city should not need to list every minor elementary school, middle school and high school in the city. I'm not necessary saying this one is "minor", but some other editors have suggested to be non-notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Free library

[edit]

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 The Free Library, retarget Free library to Public bookcase. Jay 💬 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "the" is enough of a small detail here to distinguish these two targets, and I'm not sure which, if either, is primary, nor that association library is the right (or only) suitable target for that term. I've just added a hatnote to association library to catch errant searches, but opening for discussion in case there's a better solution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting? The term "free library" is very common for library names in this area, and it helps to be able to link them to an explanation. Nor are many searchers for the term trying to get to some sub-project of an online dictionary. These redirects look fine as they are, thanks. ɱ (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the Free library redirect looks fine. The destination article is only about private libraries, but a lot of public libraries are also called free libraries. Some of them even have "free library" in their names, such as the Louisville Free Public Library. Perhaps it should just redirect to Libary, since that article mentions that many libraries provide free services. Public library mentions that many libraries provide free access and free lending. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Libary? ɱ (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that "a lot of public libraries are also called free libraries"? As far as I knew, the title was meant as a literal distinction, that it wasn't a public library. You adding in about some random "free public" library is a red herring; it's not relevant here, as it carries a very different meaning than "free library" does. ɱ (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being free has nothing to do with being private, or perhaps being public makes a library more likely to be free than being private. The Free Library of Philadelphia, Northborough Free Library, Marin County Free Library, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Wilton Public and Gregg Free Library, Fletcher Free Library, Holderness Free Library, Richards Free Library, Cotton Free Library, Alameda Free Library, Kent Free Library, Ames Free Library, Manchester Free Library, and Newton Free Library, for example, are both free and public. There are many more. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free library should redirect to library or just delete it as not having an obvious target and very little use. The Association library stub should be merged into library; there's not enough there for a standalone article. Keep The Free Library as is. Someone searching using "The" and the capital "L" probably wants the current target, not libraries in general; it gets 8x the use of the lower-cased redirect and has hundreds of incoming wikilinks. Station1 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Free Library. The definite article and case together makes it very clear that the reader is looking for a topic by its proper name, not free libraries in general. The two do not need to point to the same target. I'm not sure about free library, but I'm leaning towards delete unless an appropriate target can be found. Neither association library nor library actually mention or explain the term "free library" in any sense, so I'm not convinced either is a helpful target.
    Regarding the public vs private discussion, according to association library, an "association library" is both privately governed and also, legally speaking, a "public library". It may be that some of the examples of public libraries which call themselves free libraries are in-fact association libraries, resulting in confusion. Additionally, even if a "free library" does technically denote a privately owned or governed library, I'm not sure we can assume that readers will know that distinction (especially if they aren't from the United States). – Scyrme (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget free library to public bookcase which has an explicit mention, as suggested below.
    Searching externally for "free+library" brings up many results primarily partial title matches for The Free Library and the public libraries listed by BarrelProof, as well as irrelevant partial matches with the phrase "free library books". Searching for the plural "free+libraries" to try to avoid irrelevant matches yields results which seem to indicate that public bookcases are probably the primary topic for the common noun. – Scyrme (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to go back and re-read the Association library article. They seem to be a particular hybrid of public and private that exist only in certain states of the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Free Library, retarget Free library to Public bookcase. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a disambiguation page should be created to list general Library, Public library, Public bookcase and the private Association library topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were disambiguated, I don't think it would be appropriate to list library. They aren't synonymous and it was only suggested as a target because a more relevant article had not yet been found. At best, library would be a partial title matches, and partial matches don't belong on disambiguation pages. (WP:PARTIAL)
According to the article itself, legally speaking, association libraries are a subset of public library. Unless there are sources out there that attest to "free library" being used narrowly for that particular subset of public library, it's probably sufficient to link public library. At that point, it may be simpler to just use a hatnote at Public bookcase; something like:
"Free library" redirects here. For freely accessible institutional libraries, see public library. For the online archive, see The Free Dictionary § The Free Library. – Scyrme (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That hatnote looks good to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the approach will be a hatnote, I think it would be better to retarget to Public library and have a hatnote about Public bookcase at the top of that article rather than the other way around. The Public bookcase article discusses some new movement that started its history around 1991 or in the late 1990s. The term "free library" has been around a lot longer than that and is much more familiar to most people in the form of a Public library. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that public bookcases are relatively recent, I don't think that means most people would association "free library" with public libraries before public bookcases. Perhaps that's true in the United States, where the term is used by some prominent and well-established libraries, but I'm unsure. It's plausible to me that most people know public libraries as "public libraries" rather than "free libraries", allowing public bookcases to establish a stronger association with the latter term despite being only decades old. In the era of mass media, decades can be plenty of time in which to gain sufficient public awareness.
Unless I overlooked something, external search results seem to suggest that public bookcases are the primary topic for the common noun. While search results aren't a flawless way to to determine these things, it at least provides some evidence beyond our individual guesses at what most people might expect. – Scyrme (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief mention of "free libraries" at Public library § United States and there's also a mention of and link to the Free Library Movement of Australia at Public library § Other countries. Public library could also work as a target, but I still think Public bookcase is the better target as the term is prominently included in the lead section whereas the mentions at Public library are brief and way down in the article text. I wouldn't object to targeting Public library and hatnoting to Public bookcase instead if that's what others would prefer. – Scyrme (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Public transport in Canterbury

[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with Public transport in Hamilton (which I sent to RfD under "NotReallySoroka", my old username), this is an ambiguous redirect. Although Christchurch is indeed part of New Zealand's Canterbury region, there are many Canterburys in the world; in fact, the on-wiki primary topic for "Canterbury" is Canterbury, Britain.

Therefore, I propose that we disambiguate this redirect with links such as - but not limited to - Canterbury#Transport (for Canterbury, Britain), Canterbury, New South Wales#Transport, and Canterbury, New Brunswick#Infrastructure (which is de facto a section on the former village's transportation). Thank you. Silcox (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Fixed link 05:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vitaium (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll also note when drafting the DAB page for Public transport in Hamilton, I was suspicious of subtopic disambiguation, and decided to leave it for other editors to add or remove as they saw fit (it was proposed to add some subtopics to the target). This was more on a basis of "I've never really seen this, and I'm not sure if it's within policy", but the discussion above reinforces that view of it not really being a solid inclusion. I'm not against it outright, but I would like wider input, possibly outside of RFD. (Maybe at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages? I'm seeing ... as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. in the former's lede and A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if only that section discusses the disambiguated topic. This also suggests that the topic may eventually have its own article. lower down in the latter, which sort-of cover subtopic disambiguation, but I'd like more clarity.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Substratum

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Substratum

Church officer

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Church officer

Peter Ure

[edit]

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. ✗plicit 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A volume edited by someone called Peter Ure is cited in the target article, but this isn't sufficient for a redirect to be useful. I don't think there's any possible scope for a mention to be added here that would make a redirect valuable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: strange and unhelpful. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Golden Triangle (slavery)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Golden Triangle (slavery)

HabiJax

[edit]

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 procedural close. Nominator is proposing to delete an extant article and replace it with a redirect. The venue for article deletion (including delete-and-redirect) is WP:AFD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to uphold the redirect. I want to redirect it per WP:BRANCH. The original article is too local in nature to qualify under WP:NONPROFIT and would not meet notability guidelines for organizations. It's quite promotional and includes quite a bit of name drops. Normally, I would AfD it, however given that there's a suitable target and we're expected to consider alternatives to deletion, I am suggesting re So, re-direct per WP:ATD-R with very selective merge as appropriate. I am starting the discussion as the article creator is objecting the redirect. Graywalls (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

AmeriKKKa

[edit]

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 Satiric misspelling#KKK replacing c or k. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satiric misspelling#KKK replacing c or k to match Amerikkka :3 F4U (they/it) 14:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Christopher Murphey

[edit]

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. ✗plicit 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird redirect. Better with redlink. Jonteemil (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wayne Carter

[edit]

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) 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word is nowhere in the target. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking at the edit summary of when the target of this was changed, and looking at IMDB[1] (not a reliable source), this is an alternate name for the director. I wasn't able to find anything more concrete however (but I didn't look for long). Note that this originally targeted Lil Wayne, whose birth name was "Dwayne Michael Carter Jr." so this is potentially a valid search term for him as well. I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to film credits, Harry Fraser (director) was billed as "Wayne Carter" in 1938's Songs and Saddles (available on YouTube.) It is correct, of course, that the alternative name "Wayne Carter" should be mentioned in the article delineating Harry Fraser. Taking that into account, if there is consensus for making Wayne Carter a redirect to Dwayne Michael "Lil Wayne" Carter Jr., I would not oppose it.
An alternative possibility might be the creation of a Wayne Carter disambiguation page that would list Wayne Carter, pseudonym for Harry Fraser (director) (1889–1974), as well as Wayne Carter, rapper Lil Wayne (born 1982), birth name Dwayne Michael Carter Jr. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a dab entry, then Wayne Carter needs to be mentioned in both pages per DABMENTION. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the June 27 logpage. Dabify, delete, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify per Visviva.
ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Customs redirects

[edit]

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 WP:TRAINWRECK, renominate the problematic ones individually. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These should generally redirect to the same topic, either the authority over Customs within the country, or to "culture of"/etc. articles. Instead, we have a split between those two – articles like French customs target the Customs agency within the country, while articles like Singapore customs target "culture of" articles. (There's also the oddball Nigerian Customs, which appears to be a basketball team that is probably not the primary topic.)

There's a few related articles here that are relevant but were not included in the request because they should be fine at their current titles; Regional customs of France targets a section of Culture of France, several ethnic groups target either an article or section on their cultures (including Malay customs, which I did not include because Malay is not a demonym for Malaysia), and Customs of Barcelona (which may be ambiguous, but it doesn't really fit with this RFD).

I think capitalized "Customs" (as in French Customs) is fairly unambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but the uncapitalized "customs" and "Customs in [country]" seem ambiguous between the two usages. It's worth bringing this to RFD at least, because I have no idea where these should target.

(This was originally noted by me at WP:AFC/R after a redirect request by 123.51.107.94 to create French Customs and Customs in France as alternate versions of French customs.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three factors which should be distinguished here:
  1. "customs" vs "Customs"; since Wikipedia can't distinguish case for first letter of a title, so if the title begins with the word, it should be assumed to be lowercase as in the context of internal links in article text that's how it's most likely to appear.
  2. "of" vs "in" (see post-relist comment)
  3. demonym (eg. French) vs country (eg. France)
For each of these, the former should preferably point to cultural customs while the latter should favour national agencies. I suggest they be given priority in the order above; so "customs of France" would point the cultural customs of France, despite naming a country not a demonym ("customs of the French"). If appropriate, {{redirect}} should be used to deal with ambiguity rather than creating a disambiguation page for every single country. The exception to that might be the Nigerian redirect, since there are three possible targets. – Scyrme (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is "Place Customs", like French Customs, I think it should redirect to border control: if you enter a capital letter, you probably want an official agency. If something is "Place customs", like French customs, I lean toward cultural practices. Maybe "Customs of place"/"Customs in place" could be disambiguation pages that cover both the official agency and the cultural practices? This assumes the place is a sovereign entity that can have its own customs service; because Wales isn't an independent country (and customs agencies didn't really exist when it was independent), we should leave Wales out of this. Finally, delete Nigeria, because the Nigeria Customs are a successful professional basketball team (the article says they were runners-up last year) in one of the world's most populous countries, and they definitely deserve their own article, not a redirect to their league. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Canada Customs is clearly unambiguous, since it says "Canada" and not "Canadian" ; also unambiguous is Customs Canada instead of "customs of Canada" or "customs in Canada". Various shippers call the Canadian customs agency as "Canada Customs" or "Customs Canada" on their websites, so those two should point to the government customs agency. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I suggest: if the page takes the [denonym] Customs format, target it to Customs, but hatnote at the destination, e.g.:
"French Customs" redirects here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
If the redirect takes the [denonym] customs form, target to the culture article, but tag the target with a hatnote pointing to the relevant Customs article.
If the redirect takes the Customs in [country] form, I'd lean towards disambiguation, but with only two options that's a little weak.
Keep Canada Customs as unambiguous. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing we disagree on is "customs in". While I agree that "in" is the most ambiguous, I think in this case it better to pick one target and use a hatnote, as that saves (encouraging) creating a large number of two-entry disambiguation page for (potentially) every pair of countries. Consistently using "of" and "in" for different targets avoids having to list more than two in a hatnote. So we'd at most only need:
"French Customs" and "Customs in France" redirect here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
Not a note with 3 redirects:
"French Customs", "Customs in France", and "Customs of France" redirect here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
It also provides a natural way to phrase symmetrical hatnotes which don't awkwardly repeat "customs of..." twice (like the 3 redirect note above). Instead, the target of "customs in France" could read "For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France" while the target of "customs of France" could read "For trade customs in France, see Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes". It might be better to use French Customs as a redirect for notes like the latter, as the full names of customs agencies can be rather long.
I suppose using a disambiguation page would also avoid these issues, but I think listing a pair of redirects is probably better than a large number of separate disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you redirect "in" and "of" to the same place, you wouldn't need to mention both in the hatnote. A reader who enters "customs of" and reaches an article with a "customs in" hatnote will understand, and vice versa. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Welsh customs there isn't a customs agency at that level, so it isn't ambiguous. Hut 8.5 16:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reconsidered; "of" and "in" should both be redirected to cultural customs, as this avoids creating a large number of two-entry disambiguation pages for every pairing, and also avoids messy hatnotes (per the IP's suggestions). My recommendations regarding c/C and demonym/country still stand, and are consistent with keeping Welsh customs and Canada Customs.
Searching online, the NCS appears to be the primary topic for Nigerian Customs. If needed, a separate disambiguation page can be created at Nigerian Customs (disambiguation) with a link to the mention at Nigerian Premier League (basketball) until Nigerian Customs (basketball) (redlinked in that article) is created. Applying my suggestions:
Retarget: French customs, customs in France, Swiss customs, and customs in Iran to cultural customs articles/sections; Nigerian Customs to Nigeria Customs Service.
Keep: French Customs, Canada Customs, Singapore Customs, and Welsh customs. – Scyrme (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Welsh customs as unambiguous. There's no ambiguous agency, and I probably shouldn't have included it in the RM, but I wasn't sure if I missed something in google search.
Keep Canada Customs, French Customs, and Singapore customs per Scyrme's suggestion. I think that's the best proposed solution for capitalized and uncapitalized "Customs/customs" forms. A hatnote is probably necessary for these three.
Retarget Nigerian Customs → Nigeria Customs Service, French customs → Culture of France, Swiss customs → Culture of Switzerland per Scyrme. A hatnote is probably necessary for these three.
I think the main ambiguity remains with the "Customs in" forms. I could still be swayed to either side on them; the discussion has yet to sway me, and as such I'm neutral on Customs in Iran and Customs in France. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apply general rule: lowercase c customs means culture, Capital C Customs means border control, except when the capital is the first letter of the article, then assume it is the lowercase version. Do this across the board. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it consistent, whatever the rule, try not to have exceptions. Fieari's rule above looks OK. The point is future searchers will most likely not be aware of details on whether Wales have a "external" border or not, but it is possible, and much more likely, they know XXX Customs points to border control. So make Welsh Customs point to... whatever UK Customs point to...? When in doubt, I say it is better to point to the "border control" entity, which tend to have hard to guess "strange names", instead of the culture, as "culture" would be a more obvious alternative (to me... ) - Nabla (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the June 27 logpage. Which ones should we keep, and which should we retarget???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as no consensus per WP:TRAINWRECK. There is no reason why we need to invent a standard rule for these topics spanning many countries, which would be expected to have both their own customs and their own Customs agencies. Individually renominate any where a clear issue with the redirect can be identified and discussed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is helpful for both editors and readers; it avoids surprises. Until the most recent relist all participants seemed to be largely in agreement, and the "rule" suggested essentially amounts to just applying WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:CONSISTENT. – Scyrme (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Applying an arbitrary rule across distinct and disparate topics isn't consistency, though, it's forcing square pegs into round holes. Relists are for gathering more input on discussions that don't have an obvious result, so I don't see why offering an opinion here that wasn't offered before is problematic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not problematic to present a new view after a relist, but it's likewise not problematic to offer counterarguments when new arguments are raised; that's the nature of a "discussion".
    The rule isn't arbitrary and the topics aren't that disparate. Nigerian Customs might warrant nominating separately to consider the primary topic, but otherwise it's a matter of spelling (letter case) and grammar (proper vs common nouns), ie. WP:DIFFCAPS, not something that varies geographically. The only ones that might be contentious in that regard are those which begin with the word "customs", since Wikipedia can't distinguish the case, but the problem there is more technical than a matter of geographical context, so I don't see how separate individual discussions for each one would help. (Although I can see the merit in renominating customs in France and customs in Iran together, separately from the rest of these as they don't share the same technical issue.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual result of a "no consensus" is to default to keep. Since most participants were agreed about which ones to keep, there wouldn't be much point in renominating all of them individually. Of the more contentious ones, I think the most productive way to renominate them would be: Nigerian Customs (individually), customs in France and customs in Iran (as a pair), and Swiss customs and French customs (as a pair). The rest would all be kept. How does that sound? – Scyrme (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that – I wasn't expecting this to be so deadlocked by now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a better phrasing of my "trainwreck" argument directly above. Instead of inventing a blanket rule for no reason and shoehorning titles into it that commenters seem to agree aren't problematic, shut this whole thing down, identify which titles are problematic and why, and just discuss those titles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)

[edit]

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. I would describe this discussion as an absolute mess. Because it was open for four months(!), so much has happened to the redirects in question that I can't think that any closer could possibly find a valid consensus for literally anything. I've decided to (somewhat boldly) retarget to the new (i.e. created during this discussion) article List of MUD clients which seems to be the most accurate reflection of the reality of what's happened to these redirects, with no prejudice to immediate re-nomination (individually, not as a group). We simply can't let this trainwreck of a discussion continue in its current state. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 22:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. (Note that the target was now moved to multi-user dungeon.) Either it should be deleted entirely or restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that MUSH and MUSHclient are not the same thing. MUSHclient is a See also at MUSH. Both MUSHclient and Comparison of MUD clients were pages with significant content, and MXP (computing) to a lesser extent, that were BLARd. I would suggest to restore and take to AfD. Jay 💬 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log page and to seek further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the June 27 logpage. Should we retarget, restore the articles, or delete???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Campism

[edit]

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "campism" isn't mentioned in the target article, and the target isn't exactly the same thing. Campism posits that there are two poles in the world—one imperialist (often just the West, but sometimes broader), and one anti-imperialist—and that one ought take the position of the struggle against imperialism globally. It's historically related to the concept of the Third camp, though also had some cold war usage in this sort of two-camp way.

I'm not exactly sure what to do here. The current target doesn't seem appropriate given the historical usage of the term and the lack of the coverage of the topic in the target article. In fact, this term seems like it may be ripe for an article, and WP:REDYES is a thing, but I'd be surprised if we don't have an article that covers this yet. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Third camp. Early-20th-century socialist movements tended to align with Soviet Marxist-Leninist ideology in opposition to Western imperialism, even as the Soviet Union under Stalin emerged as a second imperialist "camp" during and after the second world war. As I understand it, "campism" emerged as a derogatory term for socialists who espoused Stalinism as a solution to capitalism (they picked one camp over the other), while the third camp called for workers to unite against both "camps" of international imperialism. In this regard, "anti-campism" could be seen as a synonym for the third camp. Even though the exact term isn't specifically defined there, I think it's the right target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its contemporary meaning seems to be dividing the world into The West and the anti-West regardless of ideology and supporting one of these camps (essentially similar to that of a "tankie"). This meaning seems much more prevalent nowadays that redirecting to its historical primary meaning could mislead readers, while disambiguation is inappropriate (quoting a user from the "Neo-communism" RfD discussion: Disambiguation is for topics with the same title, not for lists of related concepts.). I support WP:REDYES because this concept might well be ripe for an article on its own. –Vipz (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also support deletion along the lines of WP:REDYES. If I search "campism" on wikipedia (which I just did and is why I'm here lol) I want to actually read about the term campism, and how it is and has been used. It has a contemporary political meaning, and is pretty divorced from a (as far as I can tell, mainly historical) Trotskyist "branch" (article's term) whose aim is to unite the "organised working class" against both stalinism and western capitalism. It's not clear to me how a reader looking up the concept of "campism" would be any the wiser as to its meaning or usage by reading that article, they seem to be about fundamentally different concepts.
Users above may be right about the origin of the term "campist", but 1) that doesn't fit its contemporary usage with there no longer being a stalinist block and 2) it doesn't seem to me that its cold-war era usage was even particularly unique to troskyism, more a general epithet of the 20th century anti-stalinist left, whereas that Third camp article is very much about a specific current within Trotskyism. If its current usage has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and its historical usage only partially aligned with it, it doesn't make much sense to me to link to an article on a 20th century Trotsykist tendency, even if it has the word "camp" in its name. The actual meaning of the epithet "campist" seems to have more to do with the current redirect's outline (those who support all governments opposed to the US, from Iran's to North Korea's), than it does that "Third Camp" article (but I wouldn't support keeping that one either - it's a semi-related concept rather than a synonym) --Tomatoswoop (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:REDYES grounds. Ivanvector is right about the term's history, but in this case I think a {{r from antonym}} is not helpful without coverage at the target (and I am skeptical that it would be DUE here, particularly given that the epithet is also used more broadly than just third-campists at this time.signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Magic Seal

[edit]

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. ✗plicit 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A magic seal.

Way too ambiguous, and I could not find any mentions in the target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The father of song

[edit]

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) CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious redirects, implausible alternate name - car chasm (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: our article says that Pindar calls him this—and since he says it in Greek, all of these seem like plausible search terms. It's unlikely that anyone will assume that an article on Orpheus will have any of these titles, but it's not unlikely that someone running across the epithet might not know who it refers to, or might recall this phrase, but not its subject. So unless it's needed for someone else, I see no advantage to deleting these, and a good reason for keeping them. P Aculeius (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe not a super likely search term, but mentioned as an epithet for Orpheus in the article and I can't find anyone else it might apply to. I probably wouldn't have created this myself, but I don't see any harm in keeping it around. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at Bernabé's edition, Pindar's characterisation of Orpheus in this passage is something discussed by ancient authors (he includes two scholia alongside this passage), as well as (it seems) some modern scholars. Not the most important Orphic passage from Pindar by any means, but unless there is a better target, I don't see there is any harm in keeping it, and some benefit. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ancient poetry quite often refers to people by epithets like this without using their names, so it's not implausible that a reader will run across a character called only "the father of song" in a text and come to Wikipedia to work out who that is. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Mani Katti

[edit]

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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11&oldid=1173304370"