Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12

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

Nation of China (China) did not receive any support in this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Chinese nation
  Chinese nation → Zhonghua minzu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 
• Nation of China
  Nation of China → China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Previous discussion closed as no consensus with minimal participation, I believe they should either be pointed at the same target, or a dab should be created at one of the titles. As mentioned by some in that discussion, it could also refer to concepts like Chinese people. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both: These don't seem like usual search terms. I know
  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not to be invoked in deletion discussions, but I feel like it's useful to put them into context by remarking they don't for the vast majority of other countries, e.g. American nation/Nation of the United States. –Vipz (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Chinese nation" is the given literal translation of the phrase Zhonghua minzu, so shouldn't this be a !vote to retarget both to Zhonghua minzu since it's implausible to refer to the country in this manner? Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I support a retarget to Zhonghua minzu. Thanks for the notice! –Vipz (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• These get pageviews. Should certainly be kept around, and I don't suppose search results would be preferable here – searching up American nation or Nation of the United States rather gives the impression that guessing a target is significantly more beneficial to the reader. Retarget redirect no. 2 to Chinese people per Tavix last discussion – second choice keep as is. Tossing and turning over the merits of the first redirect, whether it should be kept targeting Zhonghua minzu, a relatively obscure political term, or retargeted to the broader Chinese people, or be targeted to Chinese (disambiguation) where the reader can choose their target – it's a tough call. Weak retarget redirect no. 1 to Chinese (disambiguation); second choice keep as is. J947 † ^edits 21:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the disambiguation page Chinese. Both of these are plausible search terms for Zhonghua minzu, and probably also for Chinese people or China. The disambiguation page lists all of these options prominently. Alternatively we could set-indexify. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Chinese per Mx. Granger's reasoning. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:34, 12 May 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 01:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• J L Dixons (department store) → J F Dixons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• J L Dixons → J F Dixons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created as a misspelling but improbable - "F" and "L" are not particularly close together ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was J L Dixon, as this was the name for the company that I found when i first created the page yonks ago (Southend History and Essex Archive Office), however when I started revisiting articles, I found period references that stated it was J F Dixons (the store always operated as Dixons for the public, which makes it hard to find references as Currys former owner Dixons started in Southend too!). This was why the page was moved. I believe I have redirected all links to the new name now, so no objection for J L Dixon being deleted.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – if this mistake was made by a source it might well be made again. Also,
  K4. J947 † ^edits 05:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  One of the original sources, the Essex Record Office have amended it to J F Dixon, and the contemporary references are periodicals (they were not on the web until after I created the page) and are unlikely to be incorrect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per David's explanation. J L Dixons (department store), another former title of the page, may also be bundled. Jay 💬 08:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding J L Dixons (department store) to this nomination, as suggested above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per originating editor's findings. Not propagated in other media as JL. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:01, 12 May 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. ✗plicit 06:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia Lee Montgomery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

This seems like an implausible search term. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't brackets usually indicate an abbreviation that can be used later instead of a full name? In the source mentioned below that isn't a primary source/or where she's interviewed, that's how it's used later on. It's possible I've made a mistake here and I'm willing to admit that but this is definitely quite unusual for me. I've never seen full name + initials be a valid redirect before. I don't think that's enough to have the article at that title, at the very least. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It appears she also refers to herself as "VLM"? See this CV, cited in the article, in which some exhibits have VLM in their names, cf. VLM at Tate Lates. I've taken the liberty of clarifying this in the lead, but {{R from alternative name}} may be the most appropriate RCAT. Heavy Water (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM)" is the correct name for this artist, so it is in fact a very plausible search term. Note that I stated this very clearly when I moved the page Virginia Lee Montgomery to Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM), saying "Artist often goes by "VLM" and is named as "Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM)" in her bio at https://hellovlm.com/" We can also see this in the Brooklyn Rail's article "Seether: Alexandra Hammond, Jackie Slanley, Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM)" at "https://brooklynrail.org/2022/04/artseen/Seether-Alexandra-Hammond-Jackie-Slanley-Virginia-L-Montgomery-VLM as well as this article at https://glasstire.com/2023/01/28/corsicana-artist-and-writer-residency-announces-class-of-2023/ that says "multimedia artist Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM) will raise native Texas moths”. So, yes, "Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM)" is the correct name for this artist, so it is in fact a very plausible search term, and should also be the name of the article itself, rather than a redirect to an incorrect name. PonyHotel (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PonyHotel: I think the sources are just connecting her initials and name so they can refer to her by her initials. Heavy Water (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as one of the examples of unneeded redirects provided in the
  WP:COSTLY essay: full name followed by an abbreviation. Each source provided by PonyHotel appears to only use this convention specifically to introduce the abbreviation rather than meaning the complete name of the artist, only using it once before switching to VLM in the entirety of the article afterward. Her autobiography also uses "VLM (Virginia L. Montgomery)" as the title of the page rather than this abbreviation introduction being consistent, while the Glasstire article only hyperlinks the "Virginia L. Montgomery" part to lead to another article on her, leaving the "(VLM)" outside of the hyperlink. This should mean that, in both of these cases, the (VLM) unambiguously only introduces an abbreviation rather than being a part of the alternate name, while it's more ambiguous in the Brooklyn Rail article. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 17:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Randi Moth. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Who benefits by keeping it? Not readers, because let's say despite its implausibility, someone starts to type it out: if they have suggestions on, then as they type the full name will appear and they can click it. And if they don't, it will be the number one search result. Not editors, because there's no reason to use it in a piped link; the actual page title is shorter, and identical up to the parenthetical. Might change my vote if someone can provide an actual use case where someone benefits. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they certainly do benefit if they type it out in the URL bar, or without looking at search results – both of which many people do – and get led to search results. It saves a click. Which is what a whole lot of redirects exist for, though obviously most are much more used. J947 † ^edits 01:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried the experiment you propose, and I found that typing 'Virginia L. Montgomery (VLM)' into the browser address bar brings up the Wikipedia article as result #4 (assuming Google is your default browser search engine), whereas if you enter the same thing without the parenthetical, Wikipedia comes up #3. (If duckduckgo is your default engine, then Wikipedia is #2 with the parenthetical, #1 without.) There seems to be no benefit in having the redirect with the parenthetical, at least in this one case. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry, I meant searching from one internal article to another by just replacing the bit after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. Some people do that. J947 † ^edits 04:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another go. (And to close out the April 28th page.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as one of those draft titles that organizations and people tend to make when they want to market their initialism instead of making redirects for it or appropriate disambiguations like VLM (artist) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unnecessary, especially since I just made Virginia L. Montgomery which serves the same purpose and is more plausible QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:39, 12 May 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 01:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Backstroke of the West
  Backstroke of the West → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Leaked workprint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Even when it was created (Special:PermaLink/161194302) the mention on the page was just trivia. Not surprising it was removed. - 2pou (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sounds like some general art or history phrase, not specific to Star Wars AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searches show this to be a fan gag dub of one of the films, but this isn't mentioned in Cultural impact of Star Wars or covered in any significant fashion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Backstroke of the West is based on a poorly translated Chinese bootleg of the movie. There is at least some reliable coverage of it (The Hollywood Reporter, Polygon) so it could easily be added somewhere on

Star Wars: Episode III and redirected to wherever it best fits on that page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Also worth noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star War The Third Gathers: The Backstroke of the West which predates those two articles by a decade. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what Anakin was doing in that lava river! – .Raven  ^.talk 11:27, 14 May 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 retarget to Welsh#Related to Wales. ✗plicit 06:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Welsh NationWelsh Nation → Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Welsh nationWelsh nation → Welsh people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Welsh people. "Nation" refers to a group of people, not to a political entity. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Welsh, a disambiguation page which includes both targets. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Should also include the separate page Welsh nation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now bundled here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Welsh#Related to Wales. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 13 May 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 retarget to Scottish. ✗plicit 06:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Scottish NationThe Scottish Nation → Scotland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scottish NationScottish Nation → Scotland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Scottish nationScottish nation → Scottish people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Scottish people. "Nation" refers to a group of people, not to a political entity. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged these discussions together. I hope that'll help. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 04:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Scottish, a disambiguation page which covers both the current target, the nominator's suggestion, and any other possible options. Same as #Chinese nation above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Should also include Scottish nation which is a separate page made by the same editor. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bundled Scottish nation as suggested. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to disambiguation page Scottish. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 13 May 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

).