Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 24

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 2, no consensus on two. Support grew for keeping the latter two redirects following the addition of a mention at the target; while it is valid for editors to argue that this is still not useful, the majority arguing that it is useful carries arguments of equal weight. Meanwhile, there was some concern that the first two redirects are overly ambiguous and could benefit from disambiguation, without a clear consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Humanities and Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Humanities & Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Humanit. Soc. Sci. → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Humanit Soc Sci → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are all redirects for a journal, one of several hundred, published by that company. There's no content about it in the target article, and, as the hatnote there informs us, there exists another, unrelated, journal with the same name (

• Strangely, these were created by a bot that got approval in 2018. There seem to be a large number of such redirects. They defy the common logic of "no redirect unless target has relevant content", but are there any considerations that counterbalance that? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These redirects exist to warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher, and to get picked up by
  WP:CITEWATCH
  . See
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects,
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals, and
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#World Open Chinese Studies Journal

for similar discussions, with the difference here that the publisher is actually notable enough to have an article. Deleting one out of the thousands is counterproductive and makes a special case of something that isn't.

b} 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see those XfDs as relevant here as they all involve either categories or redirects to categories. A more directly relevant case (redirects from journals to a publisher article without mention) would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Bunch of academic journals. – Uanfala (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and most of the other 1600 redirects to that page). The current target does not help readers in any way, and even if it did it is not our job to "warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher". While
  WP:NOTDIR it should not be abusing the encyclopaedia, especially the mainspace of it, to achieve those aims. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all per Thryduulf, and per my usual stance on these categories and redirects. (Seriously, I have nothing additional to add to this in addition to what Thryduulf said ... since the statement summed up my thoughts better than I ever could.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because even if they aren't mentioned in the current version of the article (which is not a requirement, and never has been, even if this page has seen a lot of "delete because the current version doesn't mention it" nominations for the past few years). These redirects help people figure out something about the subject, and something is more than nothing. I wouldn't object to retargeting an individual redirect, if there were a more sensible page for it to point to (e.g., if someone ever wrote an article on a an academic division of Humanities and social sciences), but until there is a specific need to retarget, I see no value in just deleting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's all fine in theory, but the current target doesn't tell anyone anything useful - if they know that this is a journal they might be able to figure out that this article about a journal publisher is relevant because they publish this journal, however if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it so it's unhelpful (it doesn't help them find more information but instead actively makes finding that harder). If they don't know that this is a journal, then this page will most likely just leave them confused, so it's unhelpful - it's even worse if someone is looking for information about the academic discipline. "Something is better than nothing" can be true, but is not always - the test for a redirect is always is it more useful than harmful, and in this case there is near zero utility and lots of (potential) harm so there is no justification for its existence. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It tells me something useful, especially if I encounter the link in the middle of a citation, and since citations don't normally name the publisher, then it's not true that "if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it". See also

  WP:RFD#KEEP

  #5: "Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."

  Of course it would be better if the article itself was improved, but nothing we do about the redirect will affect the article's contents, and once editors declare (without evidence) that an academic journal isn't notable, then it can be difficult to get any information about the journal into an article. I spent hours trying to add independent sources to List of MDPI academic journals last year, and someone removed it because independently sourced information is – in his personal opinion – "promotional". I would not be entirely surprised if any attempt to list the journals for this publisher would also get such a reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is consensus that we shouldn't have any information about this journal, which seems to be what you are describing (see also

  WP:NOTDIRECTORY), then we should not have a redirect pointing to our lack of information about this journal because that actively misleads readers trying to find information. RFD#KEEP point 5 is not a trump card, some people saying they find it slightly useful if they see it in certain context that, with their prior experience, gives them enough hints to understand that when they arrive at a page that offers no information about their search term they can make a guess at why they are there and use that to guess something about the topic that might or might not be correct, relevant or helpful is hardly evidence that the counter arguments about harm, confusion and unhelpfulness are incorrect - especially when the required initial context is not the only way people will arrive here. Additionally, redirects should not be used as an end-run around consensus to exclude (or lack of consensus to include) information about non-notable topics. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  b} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In what way is confusing and misleading readers better for the encyclopaedia than not confusing or misleading them? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the most wide-spread "

  WP:IAR due to all the discussions for such redirects. Yeah, I'm being pedantic, but whatever. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Indeed,

  WP:IARUNCOMMON is relevant here. There over 1600 redirects to this article alone, that's not something IAR could justify even if the rule you are ignoring was preventing you from improving the encyclopaedia (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It can easily justify them, because they all are beneficial to both the reader, by warning them these journals are associated with predatory publishers, and to Wikipedia by being needed for the

  b} 20:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (Sorry for my intentional

  WP:IAR claim really isn't valid anymore due to how often you have done this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Steel1943 has it spot on here - if you can justify all these redirects then you should have no problem at all getting a consensus for amending the relevant policy so you don't need to ignore any rules and so IAR doesn't apply. If on the other hand you can't get such a consensus then what you are doing is clearly not improving the encyclopaedia so IAR doesn't apply. However, it's not just one rule you are attempting to ignore here - you're trying to ignore at least

  WP:IAR is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • IARUNCOMMON is a two-sentence "essay" written by yourself. And nowhere does it say that IAR stands for "Ignore A Rule". Basically, your last remark argues for abandoning IAR completely. --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The point here is that

    WP:IAR is to be used for rare exceptions; no way 1000+ existent instances of something is considered rare. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I missed the 999 other discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      ...You missed the statement above stating there are about 1600 similar redirects pointing towards this target? Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes, I saw that, so that's 1 case. Now point me to the other 999. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        IAR is being claimed as the justification for all of the redirects from journal names to this article, and (presumably) for similar redirects to other publishers. Given that the redirects require rules to be ignored in order to exist but the target articles don't (or at least I don't recall anyone claiming they do) it is the redirects that are being enumerated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It may have been written by myself (in response to someone else quoting my words) but nowhere I've used it, or where I've seen others use it, has anyone rebutted it (including you here). Length is not relevant - indeed it's longer than

    WP:IAR itself. Most importantly IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, you must have a good reason why the rules need to be ignored and the outcome of ignoring those rules must be an improvement to the encyclopaedia that was not possible without ignoring the rules. For a handful of instances it's no big deal if you don't get consensus for a small change that's unquestionably an improvement, however it is a very big deal if you're using it to justify tens of actions (in this case over one thousand six hundred actions) that are, at best, of dubious benefit (or as here actually a net disbenefit). It's worth noting that the community strongly desires advance consensus for mass actions that don't require any rules to be ignored, which is further evidence that ignoring rules on a mass scale is inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• If I'm not missing something, the latter three redirects aren't tagged. J947 † ^edits 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I must have forgotten. Will tag them now. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Thryduulf. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added the list of journals, which should address the concerns of @
  b} 01:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The addition of the list is definitely an improvement to the article, and I'm sure some editors would be happy with redirects to list entries. However, I don't see a redirect as useful if the only relevant information about its topic in the target article is the fact that it exists. Also, my main concerns were to do with the redirect's ambiguity. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another indicator of this ambiguity comes from the incoming links: I've had a look, and I've had to change all five of them [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] as they intended other topics. – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    These links exists because of poor grammar, and People Who Believe Their Position and Field of Study is Very Important and Thus Must Be Capitalized. These aren't legitimate standalone topics, they're just your standard XY crossbreeds. Or flat out bad links (e.g.

    b} 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  Per Uanfala, and the earlier comments about long lists of publications tending not to stick in journal publisher articles (seemingly for good reason), my deletion recommendation stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least the latter two redirects as they fairly unambiguously refer to the journal. Unsure what to do with the others. J947 † ^edits 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the latter two per J947. Disambiguate one of the former two, and retarget the other to it. Rename the existing ones as Humanities and Social Sciences (journal), Humanities & Social Sciences (journal) to remove ambiguity, and so they can continue to be linked in citations. Tag as {{R from journal}}. Or create the dab at Humanities and social sciences, with one of the entries to Humanities, arts, and social sciences (it is better than nothing per WhatamIdoing ). Also, there is one article section Humanities#Humanistic theories and practices that briefly provides a comparison of humanities and social sciences. Brief, but could be exactly what some readers are looking for. Jay 💬 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect because on the

talk 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Very few of the results google is giving me are in English, which makes finding how the term is used in English tricky, and what I have found is not definitive one way or the other but [6] does back up the redirect's current target.

Hari raya puasa redirects to Eid al-Fitr, and that seems correct. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. While it's mentioned in the article, I don't think that means there should be a redirect.

WP:RLOTE indicates that a redirect from a foreign language should have special signifance for the area where that language is spoken. Ramadan has a global scope, not a regional one so I don't think that is the case here. Additionally, while Islam is the majority religion in Malaysia and Indonesia, I don't think that in itself is enough to establish special affinity. Catholicism is the majority religion in Poland, even more so than Islam in Malaysia or Indonesia (if "religion in..." articles on Wikipedia are to be believed), yet Wielki post does not redirect to Lent (despite being mentioned in the article) nor should it. In this case I think it's better to allow uninhibited searching. – Scyrme (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nominator, but not per
  WP:PTM: too vague to tell whether someone is trying to find "bulan puasa" i.e. Ramadan, or fasting in Islam. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 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 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. Jay 💬 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Envrionment Green Party of Kenya → Mazingira Green Party of Kenya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo of Environment Green Party of Kenya, Envrionment does not exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Deltee [sic] per nom. Duckmather (talk) 03:53, 26 March 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 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bangkok 12th district → 2011 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bangkok 11th district → 2011 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Electoral districts in Thailand have changed numbers with every recent election, so the 12th district in one election has no relation whatsoever to the 12th district in the next. The titles in question were created as articles about districts in the 2011 election, which have since been merged/redirected to the

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

).