Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 12

December 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2018.

Swan Reach Country Music Festival

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Reach Country Music Festival → South Australia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 25#Swan Reach Country Music Festival but recreated to a different target. Same rationale applies: the festival is not mentioned at the target and should be deleted per WP:REDLINK if notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without prejudice of an article being created or a target that covers it. The current (and previous) targets are way too generic for a music festival that doesn't have a stand alone article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be covered (but only brieflysince its not common to include large amonts of info on organizations on settlement articles) at Mannum as that's its location per its website. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tangent Line

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 Tangent (disambiguation). Proposal unopposed. Deryck C. 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tangent Line → Mason–Dixon line#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This term is used to refer to a section of the Mason–Dixon line. However, as Tangent Line redirects to Tangent i don't think it's a good idea for this to target Mason–Dixon line#History, which makes no mention of tangent.

Two better solutions would either be to redirect to tangent where a hatnote takes people to Tangent (disambiguation) where the Mason–Dixon line is mentioned. Or to delete, so that a search for "the tangent line" will reveal both the tangent and Mason–Dixon line articles. Pontificalibus 18:44, 12 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 atheists and agnostics in science and technology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 19#List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology

List of nontheists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 19#List of nontheists

Mormonism and other faiths

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. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and other faiths → Mormonism#Theological foundations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Mormonism and Other Faiths → Mormonism#Theological foundations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Due to the use of the phrase "other faiths" in these titles, they could lead readers to assume that all faiths are listed at the target, which they are not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine to Mormonism#Relations to other faiths (the current section target no longer exists). While there are often issues with "other" redirects, I don't see a problem here. The "other" is obviously religious traditions other than Mormonism. No responsible reader will interpret this to mean all other faiths, and the section I propose refining to should have relevant discussion on whichever faiths we can speak to. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess it’d help if I had looked through the article a bit more throughly to discover this section, considering that I recently made a similar edit. Withdrawing to allow implementation of BDD’s idea. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 14 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 atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 19#List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

Khatris and other groups

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 19:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khatris and other groups → Taunk (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unclear what "other groups" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 12 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.

Cadiz City

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 Cadiz, Negros Occidental. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cadiz City → Cádiz (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is also a Cadiz City in Negros Occidental, Philippines. The Province or any higher division w/c Cadiz City of Spain should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanry (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created on behalf of Johanry ~ GB fan 12:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this redirect will only make it so that someone typing in Cadiz City does not go anywhere. I think it should continue to redirect to Cadiz, Spain as that is the primary topic. If we do anything we should redirect to Cadiz (disambiguation). There are three cities listed on that page, Spain, Philippines and Kentucky USA. ~ GB fan 13:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Cadiz, Negros Occidental (and hatnote) as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from my research. Of the three cities named Cadiz, Kentucky doesn't ever use "Cadiz City", Spain rarely (only example on Wikipedia I can find is at Autovía CA-36), and the Philippines frequently (for example, it's used 19 times at Cadiz, Negros Occidental). An external search for "Cadiz City" primarily gave me Philippine results as well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Cadiz, Negros Occidental with a hatnote to Cadiz (disambiguation) per Tavix's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 15 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.

Pontic linguistics

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 Pontic#Languages and peoples. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic linguistics → Pontic Greek (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current target is the unexpected outcome of a recent RfD discussion. I still maintain that deletion is best: there doesn't appear to be such a thing as "Pontic linguistics" (just try looking it up anywhere), and we don't have any content on wikipedia for anything that could reasonably be construed as being referred to by this term. But if we must keep this, then the previous target, the disambiguation page section Pontic#Languages and peoples, seems more appropriate as there are three distinct language-related meanings of "Pontic". And if anything, Pontic Greek is the least "linguisticky" of them all. – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the outcome of the just closed RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing in the previous RfD that addressed the ambiguity of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other terms seem to refer to language groups as opposed to a language. I think, whatever it's target, it should be the same as Pontic language, right? --Bsherr (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Linguistics" doesn't have any more affinity for "language" than it does for "languages" (though it can be argued that the reverse is true as any article about a linguistic grouping of languages would sound more "linguisticky" than an article about an individual language). For a redirect like Pontic linguistics, if it is to exist at all, there's no reason for its target to be the same as Pontic language rather than Pontic languages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fair. I suppose any doubt should be resolved in favor of the disambiguation page as the target. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I guess there might be differences in the background assumptions here. On wikipedia there are altogether fewer than ten redirects that contain a language name followed by "linguistics" [1]. Most of these go to articles that have some content relevant to the discipline (rather than the language), and in the best cases that's a different article than the one about the language: for example, German linguistics redirects to German studies and Russian linguistics redirects to List of Russian linguists and philologists. It's from this vantage point that the redirect Pontic linguistics appears harmful: it leads you to expect content that isn't actually there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I read that argument in the prior discussion, but it seems to me that until there is an article on the field of study, redirecting to the object of the study is an acceptable alternative. Though I think quite reasonable people can differ on that issue. Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pontic#Languages and peoples per the above. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Arms & Hearts and Amorymeltzer: Do you have anything to add?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: Sorry, didn't notice this; I don't think XfD closer pings in the relist. At any rate, I don't have a particular comment on this redirect. I don't think it should have been nominated: the previous RfD didn't close as no consensus WP:TRAINWRECK, so while I've disagreed with the re-nomination of all these redirects as well as the ones on the 25th on process grounds, I've stayed out since others besides the nominator have been willing to discuss them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pontic#Languages and peoples or delete - Pontic languages seems an as likely target. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This still seems to be attracting participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: Anything to add? Deryck C. 10:46, 12 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.

Famous suicide

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) 03:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famous suicide → List of suicides (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous redirect, since most of the suicides listed at target article could easily fit into the "famous" category. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's a reasonably likely search term for someone writing an essay, or looking for a good example. "Famous" is not the same thing as "notable", but List of suicides is the best article we have, and is a really good starting point. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard Cavell. Since most of the suicides listed at target article could easily fit into the "famous" category this appears to be the correct target, and since there's nothing else on Wikipedia called "famous suicide" I don't see how this is ambiguous.. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:53, 12 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.

Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2006Rev

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 21#Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2006Rev

Rivals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 20#Rivals

Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 18:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana → Hot spring (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not discussed in target article; a redlink would be better. Catrìona (talk) 03:32, 12 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.

Bozeman Hot Springs

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 18:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bozeman Hot Springs → Hot spring (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not discussed in target article; a redlink would be better Catrìona (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not mentioned at Bozeman, Montana, it does appear to be a real place ~7 miles away (see Montana Highway 85). --BDD (talk) 16:39, 14 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.

New food processor

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New food processor → Food processor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
New Food Processor → Food processor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No utility. Not really sure of the intent here. MB 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added New Food Processor to the nomination due to it only differing in capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a caveat - I was invited to comment because of my previous involvement with the articles in question. If you look at the history of New food processor [2] before December 11 it shows that someone wrote a full article on an appliance of that name, and nobody else could figure out how it was different than a plain old food processor. Then another editor did a basic redirect and here we are. The thing is, "New Food" really is a term used by health activists [3] and there is also a book on how to process it [4]. If foodies learn of this discussion there may be an argument over whether "new food processing" is a notable new thing. Until then, I recommend deleting the redirects and the history of the offending article, though I admit that my knowledge of the field is limited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New food-processors are no different from old food-processors, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a redirect for new-food processors when new food is a redlink. The existing title is unhelpful because it's ambiguous and needs a hyphen somewhere, and there's no point in disambiguating between two pages that don't really need redirects in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted. The topic (new food processor) wasn't different from the current article, it was that the article was the new version created by a WikiEd editor, and they probably didn't have adequate instructions. Natureium (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally absurd and irrelevant redirect that no one will ever use and has absolutely no value. Praxidicae (talk) 01:49, 14 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.