Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• File:4 to Doomsday DVD cvr.png → File:Four to Doomsday DVD.png  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect; updated file location to actual episode title. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:FILEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 07:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, there's a guideline, but what purpose does this redirect serve? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the file was at this title for over 12 years, there are likely external links pointing to this redirect intending to point to the file. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no such external links? Is this more an assumption? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an assumption. A simplified version of things: if the assumption is true, people will be harmed by the deletion of this redirect or helped by the existence of this redirect. If the assumption is false, no one will be helped or harmed by the deletion of this redirect or no one will be helped or harmed by the existence of this redirect. So either deleting this redirect is a net negative or a net neutral. Bear in mind that redirects are cheap. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This image is copyrighted. External links should not be referencing this image at all. If they want to use it, they will need their own fair use rationales on their own sites. Thus any external links are not a good reason to keep this around. Indeed it would seem to be a bad reason to keep it around, by facilitating copyright violations off site. Since Wikipedia is not COMMONS, the external sites linkage shouldn't really be an issue, since shared images come from Commons, shared among many projects, while English Wikipedia doesn't do this as a project goal. Copying the rule from COMMONS doesn't really help English Wikipedia in this case, since other wikipedias are not relying on English Wikipedia to serve their images. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not seemingly be inappropriate for a website to have provided https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4_to_Doomsday_DVD_cvr.png for people to follow and view the image (while not hosting it themselves). Even if it is, that is not our concern. Moreover, someone may have stored the link privately (i.e. not publicly) for some reason or another. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention the page histories, which would be unnecessarily obfuscated. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet we delete templates all the time, even though they greatly damage historical versions of articles, when you try to see an old version, and the template no longer exists that formats the articles. As a cover image, this doesn't really obfuscate the article. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects are cheap. Unlike a template, its existence does not encourage new usage. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:FILEREDIRECT. This page was created in 2009. Anyone visiting this file from a local or external link of the old name would be hampered by the deletion of this redirect. File redirects are retained unless the file was only at the former title for a short time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Barrow redirects, Delete the Utqiagvik ones. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Barrow County, Alaska → North Slope Borough, Alaska  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Barrow Borough, Alaska → North Slope Borough, Alaska  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Utqiagvik Borough, Alaska → North Slope Borough, Alaska  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Utqiagvik County, Alaska → North Slope Borough, Alaska  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Anyone who wants to know which county-equivalent Utqiagvik is in can go to

• Delete. Yes, the Borough is much larger than Barrow (and I must have missed that it was renamed!). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note — Since Alaska was prohibited from establishing counties by the 1912 organic act establishing the Territory of Alaska and the writers of the Constitution of Alaska decided not to bother with counties in favor of another system, *ANY* usage of the term "county" with respect to Alaska is misleading. However, you may believe using that term helps readers who fail to understand the numerous differences between Alaska and other states. To that end, Barrow was the name given to the equivalent first-level subdivisions recognized in both the 1960 and 1970 censuses preceding the borough's 1972 incorporation (see map of 1970 Census divisions). Most first-level subdivisions used in early statehood years were dervied from recording districts, which were used as second-level subdivisions in the 1910 through 1950 censuses. So there is a long-established historical precedent for the use of the term "Barrow" in this context. As for the other term, looks like I was correct in predicting that caving in to advocates on the indigenous naming issue would have unintended consequences. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Utqiagvik ones, since such a division has never existed. Delete Barrow County since Alaska has never had counties in any meaningful sense. Barrow Borough then becomes the tricky one. It wasn't really a predecessor to North Slope, since the boundaries are so different. That said, it seems that it might make sense to describe the 1970 census divisions in the history section of the article on North Slope and redirecting to that section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotsa ruck. Throughout the encyclopedia, the overall presentation of Alaska's local government structure is an untenable mess, mostly written by editors who plainly demonstrate a lack of the slightest familiarity with the subject matter. I haven't had much of a stomach for straightening it out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Barrow Borough for now and retarget to History when we have more description at the current target per Oiyarbepsy. Delete the rest. Jay (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Just not seeing a reason for deletion here. Could this place legit be referred to by this title? Yes. Could anything else be referred to that way? No. On the basis of those two answers, keep as a redirect.
  p 17:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all. Seems harmless and a reasonable mistake to make. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, but there's no clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Barrow Borough and Barrow County; Barrow was the name of a previously extant census division, as showed by RadioKAOS above, and the county/borough mixup is an easily understandable mistake for users to make. Delete the Utqiagvik variants; because there was never a borough-level division named for them, it feels less plausible that "Utqiagvik Borough" (or County) would be a term someone was seeking. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Digraph (orthography)#Examples. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of digraphs → List of Latin-script digraphs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Digraphs aren't limited to the Latin script, and we do have a

The rd is a leftover from when I moved the page. It could, of course, be a dab instead; there are no incoming mainspace links to worry about. If we keep it as it, we should have a hat note at 'List of Latin-script digraphs' -- but without incoming links, why clutter that article? Best I think to turn it into a dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this goes to what the end-user would expect. If you were writing in the see also section and typed in "you can find other examples at the [[list of digraphs]]", what would you expect to link to? A list of Cyrillic digraphs? Arabic? Ge'ez? No, you would expect that to be digraphs in the writing system for the "en" Wikipedia, i.e. the Latin script. The second question is whether a user would realistically use that particular link for that purpose, and I would have no doubt that someone who doesn't routinely work in non-Latin scripts (i.e. 99% of editors) would do so. Lastly, the question is whether other content should go here, e.g. a disambiguation page, and although that is a possibility, unless a significant amount of editors would expect this link to be to a disambiguation page for lists of digraphs in several scripts, or the number of alternatives becomes unmanageable, this is better handled by a hatnote at the target page if even one editor were to express that expectation.
  WpWS 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would suspect some would want digraphs from any script, not just Latin, as a whole over different scripts. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly cannot come up with a plausible use case for that. If someone is talking about digraphs outside a specific script, they're going to link to the concept of
      WpWS 06:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Disambiguate to all articles or sections of articles that lists them -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Digraph (orthography)#Examples itself as a target? It links both lists that exist as well as adding information for some more writing systems. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That would seem to be a reasonable target. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. --
  talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Digraph (orthography)#Examples since it already has a list of digraphs from many scripts with links to the Latin and Cyrillic links. Any dabpage would necessarily be clumsy as it would need to link to that section anyway for non-Latin non-Cyrillic scripts (so it might as well just send you there for everything), and anything more on that page would be essentially just a content fork. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: As per above, many articles/article sections this could refer to. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the November 23 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Embarkation Room → List of Stargate SG-1 characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was caused by a series of merges. In 2005, someone had created a stub about the Embarkation Room in

• Delete (assuming it's not required for attribution) unless an article can be found that mentions the topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Embarkation Room (Stargate) to preserve its edit history, and retarget per nom. Then Embarkation Room and embarkation room should both be redirected to Embarkation, since embarkations exist all over the place, in real-life, not just fiction -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing left from the merge, and the target that was merged into has since been merged itself. Because there is no content extant from that article, there is nothing to attribute, so we are safe to delete this. I'm not sure I understand the proposal to retarget to Embarkation, there is no information about rooms there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mx. Granger and Tavix. No mention of any rooms anywhere on enwiki, should be deleted as to not confuse readers. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nancy Utley → Searchlight Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Former exec for an unclear amount of time, is mentioned at the target but only in a

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was restore article. Thanks to Snood1205 for breaking the procedural stalemate with a well-reasoned argument. I won't be the one to take it to AfD to give anyone wishing to improve the article an opportunity to do so, but it goes without saying that anyone is free to nominate it at any time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Does not appear to be mentioned in the article anymore. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Was an article, BTW. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose keep - Redirect is too long and it's not because it needed to be shorter. -47.196.35.44 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please could you clarify? "Oppose" and "keep" both suggest you don't want to see this deleted, but in combination it implies you do want to see it deleted? I'm also not sure why the length of the title is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert without prejudice to AfD per
  WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to
  WP:BLAR doesn't require an AfD here, as far as I can see, since no one's objected to the blanking. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The redirect has been nominated for deletion, which is an objection to the outcome of blanking and so an objection to the blanking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to write a response to this, as I think it's a misreading, but Snood1205's !vote has rendered it moot, so I'll just say I'm happy for the article to be restored and go to AfD, but would be surprised if the result there was anything other than what I've proposed above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Arms & Hearts as the simple
  WP:NOTBURO solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Revert per Thryduulf. As there are now two arguments for reversion, and I'll make mine specifically not as a procedural argument, but as an argument that I think the article should not have been turned into a redirect. It at least arguable meets
  Say Hi! (talk)) 02:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we Restore+AfD or look at retarget if the eventual result of the AfD could be the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2021 (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.