Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 18

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. To answer the question in the relist, this one got so little discussion because the nominator stated to see the discussion for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, which was effective in keeping almost everything in one place. Looking over the other discussion, I count at least two !votes that explicitly wanted to be applied to WP:BODYCOUNT and I did not see anything to suggest that anyone felt differently about WP:MINIMUMDEATHS and WP:BODYCOUNT. To that point, I don't see a reason why this should be open longer than the other one unless we want to ping all the participants of the other discussion and get them to explicitly state their opinion here, which does not seem worth it to me. It probably should have been bundled if someone had the foresight, but I feel it was effectively bundled anyway. All that said, I feel comfortable closing this as delete and I would have closed both at the same time had Amory not beaten me to the punch. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BODYCOUNT → User:Everymorning/Things that won't get posted to ITN  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

See discussion for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS ---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons. I suggest merging the nominations. Modest Genius ^talk 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless Everymorning moves the essay to WP space. Currently the redirect gives this the status of an wikipedia essay, whereas its actual location makes it a user essay. These things are different entities, with different levels of individual and/or community authorship. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A common practice. Many user essays have shortcuts from projectspace. There is no reason to delete this individual one while allowing all the others to continue existing; they should be handled as a class if there is an overarching problem. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyone who is being deceived by this shortcut is not doing any due diligence, i.e. following the link then assessing the content and standing of the page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As pointed out recently by Ritchie333, there is a community consensus—or at leat acceptance—of allowing mainspace redirects to user essays. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence as the most plausible solution. Deryck C. 15:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:No confidence → Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Totally unrelated to request de-adminship B dash (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, this isn't totally unrelated - having no confidence, or having lost confidence, in an administrator is a reason why they would desysopped if there were such a process. Indeed this page started out as a not-totally unworkable proposal for such a process that was speedily deleted after it was found to be the work of a sock of a banned user (WP:CSD#G5, although not explicitly stated as such). Does this make it a good shortcut, I'm not sure. There also exists Wikipedia:NO CONFIDENCE (in all caps) which redirects to Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence, a completely separate failed proposal about the same issue (although described as "Administrator recall" on this occasion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence because of the alt capitalization. We can add a hatnote if that's considered desirable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Compassionate727 which seems the most sensible solution, Certainly makes more sense than the current target. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because original target not appropriate and Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence is a failed proposal, and not much better. If you wanted a useful redirect, I'd think it would be to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  --Bejnar (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bejnar. I'm not convinced that the retarget is a good idea, given that all the incoming links consist of canvassing by a banned user for the deleted pre-redirect version of this page, or complaints about that page being tagged. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence per Davey2010; WP:NOCONFIDENCE and WP:NO CONFIDENCE already go there. The fact that the page is historical is irrelevant; we have lots of redirs to historical pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The potential confusion or inaccuracy caused by retargeting this when it's used on several talk pages and archives seems to outweigh any potential benefit. The current target is obviously not "totally unrelated" to the redirect, as Thryduulf notes. Redirects to historical pages are of course not always a problem, but creating new ones seems more or less pointless. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since all the links to this redirect were added by a blocked sockpuppet, I have no opinion on what to do with this redirect as I'm not convinced one way or another. It looks like this discussion is heading towards a "no consensus" closure. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence, since different targets based on capitalization is not desirable. For that matter, though, I'd just as soon retarget the all-caps version. I'd rather have them point at an active page when it makes sense. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• January 2008 stock market downturn → Great Recession  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Broken anchor, no where for the redirect to go. The redirect targets Great Recession#January 2008 stock market volatility but there is no mention of anything of that sort occurring in January 2008. There may be somewhere else to redirect this, but I don't know where. For all I know, the redirect title is an entirely false premise.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There used to be an article at this title, which got moved to January 2008 stock market volatility. That title now redirects to United States bear market of 2007–09, which does minimally mention January 2008 (once in the table in the context of the decline from the NASDAQ & S&P 500 peaks in October 2007, and once in a quote about job losses), but doesn't specifically mention a downturn occurring that month. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is vague. Which stock market had a downturn in January 2008? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be any appropriate target: nothing relevant is mentioned in Great Recession, Financial crisis of 2007–2008, Timeline of the Great Recession or United States bear market of 2007–09. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ).css( → Cascading Style Sheets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. This punctuation does not belong here. � (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was created with an edit summary indicating that it is a common misspelling, and with 92 hits so far this year and 153 last year, it does indeed seem to be commonly used. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't know why this has been used, but it doesn't appear to plausibly be a common misspelling. How would one generate such a string by accident?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. I'm not sure exactly how this is a common misspelling, but it's used relatively frequently and it's hard to imagine that the reader who searches for this could be looking for any other article (CSS and .css redirect to the same target). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) 14:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian Gilmartin → Incel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nothing in the target mentions this individual. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment creator of redirect looks like they were going to work on expanding the Incel article. There is mention of Gilmartin in magazines, but if it is not going to be added into the Incel article, it is not going to help anyone. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC) updated 19:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have changed the redirect so that it is now mentioned in the target. Thylacoop5 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the redirect originally (and at the time of nomination) targetted Incel#Demographics, Thylacoop5 has changed that to Incel#Ideology. A mention of "Brian Gilmartin" was first added to the article on 9 June, in a section called "Members" (there is no longer a section of that name). The extensive editwarring that this article has been subjected to though makes it plausible that there was no mention at the time of nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if an individual is primarily known for their work on a concept, I don't think redirecting the individual to the concept is helpful, particularly in the context of future incoming links which are intended for the individual. Furthermore, the target discusses a particular online subculture, which does not appear to be the focus of Gilmartin's writings. I don't even see evidence that Gilmartin actually used this term (e.g. a GBooks search of Shyness & Love finds zero hits for "incel" or "celibate", and only one for "celibacy", as part of the phrase "vows of celibacy"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He didn't coin incel; he coined "love-shyness" but he does not equate that concept to the current definition of incel, at least according to the Elle magazine interview. [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 59.149. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Gilmartin is mentioned in the article and the reader who searches for his name is provided with a little bit of useful information. But the connection between Gilmartin and the target is very tenuous: though contemporary "incels" might take inspiration from his work, it looks as though that work was published entirely before the term gained currency. As such, there's a risk of creating the inaccurate impression that Gilmartin used the term himself or had anything to do with its later prominence, which we ought to avoid. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Michael Thornton. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor) → Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, awarded 1884)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To facilitate restoring the article to this title and undo unnecessarily complicated move and rename -- only one "Michael Thornton" has been awarded the MOH; the name of the modern Michael E. Thornton is sufficiently distinct even if renamed to Michael E. Thornton (Medal of Honor) — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Michael Thornton as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. "Only one 'Michael Thornton' has been awarded the MOH" is demonstrably false. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Michael Thornton per BDD. The Vietnam War awardee is indeed referred to as "Michael Thornton" (without middle initial, without shortening of given name) in some WP:RS [7]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Michael Thornton as previously noted; in addition, Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, awarded 1884) should be renamed to a more concise and prosaic name such as Michael Thornton (born 1856). Compare Peyton List (actress, born 1986), Peyton List (actress, born 1998) (which probably also don't need the "actress" qualifier per WP:CONCISE). TJRC (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I realize my aside on renaming the Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, awarded 1884) is outside the scope of this discussion. I'll either move or request-move after this discussion completes. TJRC (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, 1884) best fits the naming of similar articles. See Category:United States Navy Medal of Honor recipients. There are two John Williams disambiguated by birth year, but it seems that's because they were awarded it in the same year. There are also two John Smiths with the same award year. John Smith (Medal of Honor, born 1854) could perhaps be renamed John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1884). Ah, that's it, I'm calling in the cavalry! --BDD (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Michael Thornton as above. Whether to redo the disambiguation is another story. (sailor, born 1854) might be good for that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Michael Thornton as above; in addition, I agree that whilst it is off-topic here, Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, awarded 1884) should be renamed to Michael Thornton (born 1856) which is all that is required to disambiguate this one from the others. "Medal of Honor" should not be used in a disambiguation. The other articles using it need to be renamed in accordance with the year of birth or sailor/soldier/airman arrangements (or a combination of those two). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If anyone starts an RM for Medal of Honor winner articles, I'd appreciate a ping. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Tropical Storm Son-Tinh (2018). {{R from incorrect name}} (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Typhoon Son-Tinh (2018) → 2018 Pacific typhoon season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Son-Tinh in 2018 never reached typhoon status B dash (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as useful for people who don't know the difference; pageviews data shows that this is a plausible search term. But retarget to Tropical Storm Son-Tinh (2018) as that article has already been spun off from the season article. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per KN2731. Redirects are not required to be accurate, and inaccurate redirects can often be useful to readers. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) 13:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wax Jax → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of Wax Jax on target page: no evidence that this is a useful redirect Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can only find "Wax Jax" used in one soure: Las Vegas Sun [8]. It was in reference to a wax figure of Michael Jackson, as opposed to a short form of "Wacko Jacko" which I was expecting. This is not even remotely a plausible search term for the subject. ℯxplicit 07:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per explicit and the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm only seeing some product called Jax Wax which doesn't have a page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.