This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2018.
Wikipedia:Words to use
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 move to userspace without leaving redirect, which fulfils both "delete" and "restore to userspace" suggested here. Deryck C. 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially misleading (*skimming* "Oh, looks like "cult" is one of the 'Words to use'. Guess I should use that word liberally in my draft I'm creating about [insert New religious movement here]."
Not opposed to a retarget or creating content under this title, but IDK where it would go or what content would be here. For now, Delete. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that somebody will be looking for a general page going into details about formatting, spelling, and so on. Maybe look at something in 'Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting)' as a possible target? Still, I guess my default impulse is also to delete this given that there's such a near infinite amount of words that would be fine to use when writing a good article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if there is a list of words to not use, then every word not on the list is okay to use, for now. So, how does a user determine if a word is okay to use? They check to see that it's not on the list of words not to use. Hyacinth (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a redirect for 13 years and appears to only be linked in two places outside of this RfD. I can't find any evidence that the potential confusion described in the nomination has ever occurred, nor can I see any other harm done by keeping this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading and pointless. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restorethis version, userfy to User:Hyacinth/Words to use, and mark as historical with ((historical)). Hyacinth, who is active, can then do with it as they desire. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:38, 1 August 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.
Russian hacking scandal
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 Cyberwarfare by Russia. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 10:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Cyberwarfare by Russia. This is a likely search term, so it shouldn't be deleted. However, it's too generic to refer to any particular Russian effort. More importantly, Wikipedia should not assume that a reader who searches for this actually knows what they are looking for, since they may be misinformed (et cetera). The best solution is to redirect to the blanket article. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the government of Russia enacts cyberwarfare measures upon many different countries, not just the U.S., going to the general 'Cyberwarfare by Russia' page makes sense to me as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. I generally concur with the above, but I also wouldn't object to a list of events this could relate to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per JFG. I was going to suggest DAB, but this does it. (A little dab'll do ya?) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:23, 31 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.
High on Life
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 Disambiguate High on Life, redirect High On Life there. H/T Angus ~ Amory(u • t • c) 18:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this should redirect to Martin Garrix discography when it may refer to tons of other things such as an exhibition at American Visionary Art Museum, the figure of speech about being in a natural state of joy, a song by DJ Encore, a band, an album by Engelina, etc. The editor whose username is Z0 08:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Z0: Uh maybe you should've moved my redirect to High on Life (song) and create a disambiguation page at High on Life in order to preserve history, instead of making4newredirects just because you weren't happy that I redirected the page first? Now that you've done so much research about topics named High on Life but you decided to take it to RfD rather than making a disambiguation page, just because you want my initial redirect deleted? What we need to do now is to move High on Life and High On Life to High on Life (Martin Garrix song) and High On Life (Martin Garrix song), because it was my intention to create a redirect for a song by Garrix, and as you've discovered, there's a song with the same name by DJ Encore (though I would like to point out that his entire discography is seemingly unsourced). Making a disambiguation page on top of this current redirect would be seen as hijacking a redirect, which mixes up page histories. If there are no objections I'll request the moves. Hayman30 (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have moved them but felt it was better to nominate them for discussion to avoid moving controversially. Creating a disambiguation page is unsupported by WP:G6 which states a disambiguation with no blue links could be deleted under that speedy criterion. The editor whose username is Z0 09:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the "no blue links" part. You found at least 4 topics, that means the page would link to 5 pages, including Garrix's discography. WP:G6 states that a disambiguation page can only be deleted when it links to only one page. In case someone plans to create an article with actual content, the disambiguation page at High on Life will be moved to High on Life (disambiguation) in order to make way for the article, with an ((Other uses)) hatnote at the top of the former page. Hayman30 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:DAB, "disambiguation is required whenever there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." In this case, there is no existing article to which "High on Life" might be expected to lead. Therefore, a disambiguation page for this title is inappropriate. The editor whose username is Z0 10:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that implies making a disambiguation page when there are no existing article with the same name is strictly prohibited. There isn't the word "only" in front of "required" so I guess it's also okay (just not required) to disambiguate even when there is not existing article called "High on Life". We can leave this discussion for others to participate if you feel like it. Hayman30 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ss112: I saw you created Don't Leave Me Alone yesterday, you might wanna say something on this? Hayman30 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, as I understand it, disambiguation pages can be created for titles that may mean more than one thing, even if none of the actual topics have articles but where we can still link to, say, a related article like the artist or album if it is a song. Ss112 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as none of these can claim primary topic. If the Martin Garrix song has a substantial article then reconsider, but for now it's just a proposed single redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more High on Life songs, one from Darius Rucker and one from Rebelution. DJ Encore and Engelina song is the same as it's DJ Encore feat. Engelina. Also there's a High on Life by DJ Force & The Evolution AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the name of a Canadian YouTuber vlog whose 3 members died from a waterfall [1]AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now listed 10 songs of this name, and 3 more that could potentially be added with a dabmention. Also the name of an album by QFX. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of no PTOPIC. I arrived here because User:DPL bot was reporting four bad links to the DAB page. Two of them were byproducts of opening this discussion. The other two related to the song by DJ Encore.
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 Sun
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 disambiguate. Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. We have had a lengthy debate which rightly boiled down to two points:
The "keep" side argues that the Sun in the solar system is clearly the primary topic for the redirect title, even if we consider the capitalisation. Some expressed disbelief that editors on the "disambiguate" side wouldn't agree.
The "disambiguate" side argued that readers looking for the astronomical object are overwhelmingly likely to type "Sun" into the search box, and editors put "Sun" into the link. Readers would only type "The Sun" when they want to look up information about a newspaper. Editors on this side noted existing incoming links to "The Sun" mostly expect to link to a newspaper and are therefore incorrectly disambiguated by the redirect.
There are some attempts to see whether other titles starting with "The" generally point to the same destination as the equivalent title without the definite article, but the evidence is inconclusive.
Overall, both sides have valid, policy-based arguments, and the discussion functioned mostly as a straw poll with each participant re-iterating one of the two main arguments. In this case, the "disambiguate" side outnumber the "keep" side by approximately 2:1, so I'm closing this discussion as disambiguate, to enact the majority policy-compliant outcome. Deryck C. 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided in the last RFD in 2016 to continue to point to the star, however DuncanHill (talk·contribs) redirected it to the DAB, which I reverted, citing the RFD, Duncan then unreverted noting that the majority of the links are for the newspapers. I think the star is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to long term significance and it isn't located there because of WP:THE but the star, just like the Moon and the World etc is regularly used to refer to the star. However with usage the situation is less clear [[2]] however I don't think anyone who searches for "The Sun" would be surprised to be taken onto the star. The links can be corrected from time to time by temporary redirecting to the DAB if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect to the sun per the long-term significance. The Sun has, by far, substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Usage of the Sun is also much more common than the newspaper. It passes both the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page views of Sun and The Sun (United Kingdom) are about 164,000 and 36,500 respectively. This shows the star is much more important. Other than that, if The sun redirects to the star and The Sun redirects to the newspaper, it'd make it even more confusing because of the capitalization. Old folks may think the newspaper is much more important than the star but if you look at it from a student's perspective the sun is the source of all life and energy on earth, it is obviously greater and probably the most notable topic of all time comparing to the newspaper which might only be known in the UK and some parts of the world. The Sun is an accurate spelling for the star because it can also be a proper name since "Sun" is the name of a star. The editor whose username is Z0 08:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dab page. I note that Crouch, Swale has pre-empted this discussion by redirecting to his preferred destination here. I shall not undo his disruptive change at this stage, but believe it is bad form and typical of his previous disruptive behaviour in discussions about naming of places. The vast majority of incoming links that arise to The Sun are for either the British newspaper at The Sun (United Kingdom), or the Australian paper The Sun (Sydney). Other papers or magazines crop up too, probably at least as often as those for the star which form a tiny minority of intended destinations. The redirect to the article about the star is disruptive as it means many articles will, in time, contain incorrect links, often in references or discussion of newsworthy events. I regularly fix incorrect links to The Sun, and note that there are currently two incoming links to it, one already tagged as needing disambiguation (it's probaby the Australian paper, but I can't be sure), and one for the British paper. None for the star, as is to be expected by anybody who has kept an eye on the page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original target by default is Sun per the 2016 RFD so his action was just undoing your redirection to your preferred destination. The editor whose username is Z0 14:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect - It's certainly 50/50 with this - Disambiguation makes sense and would certainly be helpful but on the other hand I would imagine the majority of readers would be looking for "The Sun" ..... –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab as per below (mainly Thryduulf) - No doubt about I did think of The Sun newspaper however I was trying to look at it from a worldwide point of view not just a British one, Personally I still feel it's 50/50 but I'll just be a sheep and follow everyone else. –Davey2010Talk 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the result of this RFD (I'm undecided between both options right now), can we turn The Sun (disambiguation) in to a dab page listing the things specifically known as "The Sun" please? It would make fixing disambiguation links easier and make this issue less of a problem. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dab, as somebody that works of solving disambiguations with the dabsolver, I see links wrongly redirected to the star a lot. And it is frustrating mostly because the DabSolver does not see it. You have to manually check. I think that writing "The Sun" concedes that you are looking for a title or something else than the Sun. MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dab. It's unlikely that anyone looking for an article about the star will type "The Sun" in the search box. Same with incoming links, per DuncanHill. — Kpalion(talk) 16:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab. When I see "The Sun" my immediate thought is The Sun (United Kingdom) (a British tabloid newspaper), and I suspect that this is true of a lot of other Brits as well. I certainly wouldn't expect to end up at a page about the star. I also agree with Iffy about reorganising the disambiguations in this area. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you all for real? The Sun has, by far, substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Usage of the Sun is also much more common than the newspaper. It passes both the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but we have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation here. The page views of Sun and The Sun (United Kingdom) are about 164,000 and 36,500 respectively. This shows the star is much more important. Other than that, if The sun redirects to the star and The Sun redirects to the newspaper, it'd make it even more confusing because of the capitalization. Old folks may think the newspaper is much more important than the star but if you look at it from a student's perspective the sun is the source of all life and energy on earth, it is obviously greater and probably the most notable topic of all time comparing to the newspaper which might only be known in the UK and some parts of the world. The Sun is an accurate spelling for the star because it can also be a proper name since "Sun" is the name of a star. Please reconsider. The editor whose username is Z0 06:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab most people typing in "The Sun" won't be looking for the solar system object. feminist (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Retarget to the dab page, most people looking for Sun would more likely type "sun". FYI there is 1 link to this redirect in the mainspace, there were 2, but I fix one of them, it is unclear what the remaining one is meant to refer to. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab – Primary topic is not at play here. Article title "Sun" obviously has our beloved star as its primary topic. Article title "The Sun" does not have a primary topic and must be dabbed. Similarly we do not point The Times or The Times (disambiguation) to Time, even though time is of the essence. — JFGtalk 09:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that The Sun (disambiguation) points to Sun (disambiguation): that is not optimal, given the numerous entries for things called "The Sun". I would advise splitting the dab page into one for "Sun" and one for "The Sun", as these are distinct article titles with enough meanings each. — JFGtalk 09:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirect to star as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with more enduring significance. The newspaper is only WP:PRIMARYTOPIC within the UK, which is less than 1% of the world population. Believe it or not, most people in the world have never heard of The Sun newspaper, but they have certainly heard of the star. The fact that we are even debating this seems to be a clear example of English Wikipedia's systemic biases. Kaldari (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is- the star at the center of our Solar System is quite obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this. The newspaper is only relevant in parts of the United Kingdom. ReykYO! 09:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a disambiguation page at The Sun (disambiguation) per the suggestions of multiple editors above. The editor whose username is Z0 10:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've worked on it too; let's discuss details on its talk page. — JFGtalk 10:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move new dab The Sun (disambiguation) to The Sun. The status quo encourages erroneous links to the redirect when a newspaper was intended. If the page becomes a dab then these links will get reported and dealt with. Readers seeking the star can easily click its first link. Certes (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, as there is no primary topic for title "The Sun". We should ask participants to weigh in, given the split of the dab page. — JFGtalk 11:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I'm ok with both options. If The Sun redirects to The Sun (Dab) then it seems ok have the former as the title. --MaoGo (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pointing to Sun as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by long-term significance per Kaldari and Z0, and also by usage: in my first 100 GBooks hits there is not a single one that is not using "The Sun" to mean the big yellow thing in the sky. Note also The French, The Sky, The Holy Spirit, etc. not pointing to the comparatively obscure proper nouns or disambiguation pages about them. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving new dab to base name. (Repeating my !vote from above.) Certes (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DAB or move dab here, whichever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here in England, BBC TV newsreaders' way of disambiguating is often to call the newspaper "the sun newspaper". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect: I'm in the UK and think of the newspaper when I see "The Sun", but that puts me in a tiny minority. I struggled to find any WP pages linking to The Sun and expecting anything other than a big ball of fire (did someone clean them all out?) and even in generic web searches, the star heavily outweighs the newspaper (the first handful of returns tend to be related to the newspaper if the search engine knows I;m in the UK. I don't see any widespread confusion with the current situation and it apparently works well, with a large number of wikilinks being redirected where they want to be. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
did someone clean them all out? Yes, when the redirect was changed to a dab page, users (with the help of tools like WP:DABSOLVER) changed every article (Except Jascha Spivakovsky) so that the link pointed to the correct place. Iffy★Chat -- 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Did someone clean them all out?" Well I did vast numbers of them, and periodically go back to check for more. Almost always, as I said above, links to The Sun are intended for either the British or the Australian newspaper. The only reason there isn't widespread confusion is because I redirected to the DAB page and then made the effort that most editors won't. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just cleaned up today's small crop of links to The Sun. 100% newspaper; 0% star. Certes (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a hatnote to the UK newspager and the DAB page so readers can find the UK newspaper in 1 click, I'd also point out that in the star's infobox it is written as "The Sun". Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirecting to our star. If that's not a primary topic, nothing is. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per SMcCandlish. No opposition to a hatnote. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:03, 1 August 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.
Israeli involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War
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.
Propose to delete this redirect as misleading - there is no such article and the section which is targeted deals with limited Israeli logistic support, rather than actual involvement. Furthermore, we do not have any article or redirect named US involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War or for other countries deeply involved in the war, making the Israeli case a case of false balance. This is a typical case of trying to misrepresent a marginal event into something WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This case was discussed in 2016, originally keeping the redirect until content verification. GreyShark (dibra) 05:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Redirects don't have to be NPOV or even strictly accurate. This seems genuinely helpful in context. As well, I can't see how a vague term such as "involvement" necessarily implies large-scale military support. In regular, colloquial language, an entity can be easily said to be "involved" in something without playing a major role. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
misleading - there is no such article That's not a legitimate reason to delete, especially since so many redirects are former, potential, or alternative article titles. In fact, the fact that the redirect title reads like an article title is probably a good thing. Not to mention that it aids search engines.
the section which is targeted deals with limited Israeli logistic support, rather than actual involvement Limited logistic support is still involvement. In fact it's military involvement which is bigger. When JFK was sending military advisors to South Vietnam, that was the U.S. getting involved. When Obama sent advisors to combat ISIS, that was the U.S. getting involved. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets and Mr. Guye. There may be legitimate concerns about the reasons for the creation of this redirect (or there may not be), but now that it exists there is no benefit to deleting it. Perhaps for the sake of absolute clarity that Israel isn't being singled out we ought to also create Argentine involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War and South African involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War as redirects to the relevant sections. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Nomination is "unclear on the concept". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:17, 31 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.
Ecstasy (film) (2006)
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. 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in an improper naming format. Ecstasy (2006 film), the correct format, already exists, so there's no need to retain this alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible. I've never seen qualifiers arranged like that. Even Ecstasy (2006)(film) would be more reasonable than this. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike user:Mr. Guye I think this is actually quite a logical ordering of elements: Ecstasy disambiguated to the film, then further disambiguated to the 2006. However I don't think this makes it a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 26 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.