Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6

June 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2021.

Temporary workaround to be deleted

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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what the title says, this thing was never deleted unlike The evil Islamist Terrorist Entity gets its due almost 33 hours after the target stood at the redirect's title for less than a minute. Plus, temporary workarounds like this can happen to any page, so we should finish the job by deleting this, unless someone can provide a justification for why it's still needed here. Regards, SONIC678 22:57, 6 June 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.

Wikipedia:ABT

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 Wikipedia:About. ✗plicit 00:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:About as a WP:SHORTCUT. Few incoming links, none from active talk pages. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 6 June 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.

Unnamed/Untitled

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 no consensus. WP:TRAINWRECK signed, Rosguill talk 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our regular cleanup: once something has a name or title, and the article is moved to that title, we have consistently deleted, as misleading, the move-created redirect once inbound wikilinks are corrected (as I have done here). UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special cases:
Delete the rest. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:43, 7 June 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.

Can't They Hear Us

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 00:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The song is called "Can They Hear Us", not "Can't They Hear Us" NØ 18:11, 6 June 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.

Shawano (mythology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 14#Shawano (mythology)

Grammar Nazi

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 redirect to Wikt:grammar Nazi. While the !votes are relatively evenly split, the soft redirect camp has the advantage of both addressing the concerns raised by arguments in favor of other outcomes and a late lead. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Nazi was redirected to Linguistic prescription in 2007 after an AFD. In 2012 it was turned into a soft redirect to wikt:grammar Nazi, then 18 months later back into an article, and then a few months later was returned to its original target. A 2016 RFD kept that target for it and for the two {{avoided double redirect}}s also listed here.

Buidhe has now turned it back into a soft redirect. Surprisingly, the well-attended '16 RFD did not significantly discuss that option, so I think it was reasonable for her to be bold here. However, I do think that the previous consensus was correct. I suggest that we restore old target. Wiktionary redirects are useful when we don't have an article that describes a concept, and aren't likely ever to. However, "grammar Nazi" refers to a concept described at linguistic prescriptivism. That the article doesn't mention the term is less than ideal, but there's no requirement that a term be mentioned at the target page; in particular, terms seen as insulting are often not mentioned. If the concern is that some readers might type in "Grammar Nazi" not knowing what it means, and fail to understand the connection, we could always use the hatnote {{See Wiktionary||grammar Nazi|term|redirect=Grammar Nazi}}, which produces "Grammar Nazi" redirects here. For a definition of the term "grammar Nazi", see the Wiktionary entry grammar Nazi.

Finally, on a procedural note: Grammar nazi was incorrectly CSD'd in 2018. I noticed that while drafting this RFD, and brought it to the attention of The Earwig, who restored it. Just explaining that sequence of events in case anyone's wondering why it was restored and RFD'd in such quick succession.

-- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this is a great outcome as "grammar Nazi" is not even mentioned in "linguistic perscriptivism". These two concepts are not equivalent and Wiktionary has a better explanation than Wikipedia does. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought I also don't think the hatnote on linguistic perscriptivism is a good idea as I think it would give too much prominence to this derogatory label. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There's really no reason I can see for WP to link that offensive term to anything. And it was almost never seen in books, much rarer than Soup Nazi, until Wikipedia linked it in 2007; we shouldn't be doing that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As one of those who have worked most extensively on Linguistic prescription, I would object to the link. First of all, because people who use this phrase are not talking about the practice of linguistic prescription as discussed in that article. And secondly (though this may be personal opinion and irrelevant, but it is a strong viceral reaction), because anyone who has seriously studied the Nazis must object to the trivialization of the horrors of that period which are implied by using the word "Nazi" to mean "anyone I don't agree with". We do not aim to have a Wikipedia article on every word just because it is a word. There is no encyclopedic topic here. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All target linguistic prescription (weakly); RNEUTRAL needs to be borne in mind: perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In at least a significant portion of cases the term isn't meant derogatorily anyhow. A reader who hasn't heard of the term at least gets some idea of what it's about by being directed to the proposed target. It being often non-neutral is irrelevant considering that it is by far a plausible search term. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and target linguistic prescription WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia is not censored, and this is a very popular term. Deleting it would be censoring a widely used term. It is literally a label used to describe someone who is very strict about linguistic prescription, so that target should be the one. The wiktionary entry can be added to the See also section -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. The term being offensive and uncommon in books doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me that we shouldn't have a page on it, because it is absolutely a common term in culture at large, and we objectively cover many more horrible things. But I agree with buidhe that a hatnote on linguistic prescription puts too much prominence on this and I agree with Doric Loon that it's not a good target anyway. All this leads me to conclude the current situation is the best we've got. — The Earwig (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect seems the best option here. But I do think the opposing arguments (stating the term is offensive) unconvincing and not relevant. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect. These are used, and a wikt entry is available. A retarget to linguistic prescription is not suitable as it isn't mentioned there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As things stand, I can't see any outcome besides no consensus. The first should probably be retargeted to Linguistic prescription, effectively an R of Buidhe in WP:BRD, since I don't think anyone wants these to be treated differently. I was going to close along these lines but probably count as WP:INVOLVED since I closed the 2016 discussion. FWIW, I wouldn't be thrilled with such a discussion myself. Like most {{R without mention}}, it's just begging to come back to RfD one day... --BDD (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the numbers, it looks like we're 5 soft redirect, 3 restore old target, 2 delete (counting Earwig's !vote as aligned with Ivanvector's et al., even if there's a slight nuance). Weighting the arguments, I see reasons to down-weight the delete !votes, but I think the rest have about equal basis in policy. Thus, even though I nominated to restore, personally I think a close as soft redirect would be within a reasonable admin's discretion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:03, 26 June 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.

Colorado Canyon

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 Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. There's a consensus that with only one thing actually being called the "Colorado Canyon", it doesn't make sense to have a disambiguation page. I will, however, add a hatnote linking to Palo Colorado Canyon, California and Course of the Colorado River. There was no consensus as to the related question of what Colorado canyon (currently a redlink) should be, but we can cross that bridge if we come to it.(non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to other canyons on the river such as Black Canyon of the Colorado, or other canyons in the state of Colorado, such as Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Disambiguate or delete as ambiguous search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more, such as Marble Canyon and Glenwood Canyon and others described at Course of the Colorado River. Add to that any canyon in Colorado state, what we're talking about is a dab page (or more likely, a set index or List article) that would be a combination of List of canyons of the Colorado River and List of canyons in Colorado. This term is just too ambiguous and would need a major List article to cover properly. I'm fine if someone wants to undertake that, but in the meantime, I favor deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further complication: perhaps "Colorado Canyon" could apply to canyons of any one of the eight Colorado Rivers in six countries that are covered in wikipedia (see: Colorado River (disambiguation)). In Google searching, I find that it seems to apply mainly (only?) to the Colorado Canyon in Big Bend Ranch State Park in Texas. Which is nowhere near Colorado River (Texas), by the way. So, as I !vote below, I think it is best to redirect the term to this apparently-to-me wp:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term. If it is determined there are significant other real usages of the proper noun term, then eventually a disambiguation page could be created (and that could mention the possibility of fake-type usages such as incorrect references to the Grand Canyon or to canyons in the U.S. state of Colorado). --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado Canyon may refer to:
*Colorado Canyon (Texas)
*or it may be an incorrect reference to Grand Canyon, which is on the Colorado River
*or it could refer to a different canyon elsewhere, on one of many Colorado Rivers, but none specifically known as "Colorado Canyon"
*or it may refer to any one of 35 or more members of Category:Canyons and gorges of Colorado, none named "Colorado Canyon"
*or it may refer to a non-notable miniature golf course somewhere, whose URL https://www.coloradocanyonfun dot com/ is not linkable because it has web security problems.
Maybe that is laying it on a bit thick, but I personally think a non-standard disambiguation page like that would not survive the AFD which would be started immediately upon its creation, and the result would be to redirect to the one valid member, Colorado Canyon (Texas) or to redirect directly to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. Or could a proposed disambiguation page be better somehow? --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that now with the mention of the site in Texas, deletion no longer makes sense, but the term is still too ambiguous to simply retarget to that section. I have drafted a disambiguation page at the current page that I think is the best we can do right now. Another possibility is to consider WP:SMALLDETAILS and target directly to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon, but make the dab page at Colorado canyon? That way most searchers would be brought to the dab page and get where they want to go, but anyone typing the proper noun would get to the place actually named that. What do we think? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, must have passed over these when I was parsing redirects to Grand Canyon originally. If this resolves as a retarget with a dab at Colorado canyon, Canon of Colorado should probably point to the dab, while Great Colorado Canyon should probably be considered at a subsequent RfD. The middle two certainly seem appropriate as redirects to Grand Canyon. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 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.

Goehr (composer and conductor)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate use of {{R from surname}} due to the disambiguator. It is also not a plausible search term due to it being non-standard. It is additionally problematic because it is still ambiguous; his son Alexander Goehr followed him into his line of work. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been pointed out that this is an inappropriate use of {{R from surname}} due to the disambiguator, it should be revised to a more appropriate one, perhaps {{R from short name}}. If there is no appropriate template, perhaps this redirect can avoid using a redirect template. Although it may be non-standard, it does still remain as a plausible search term, since it is one of the names under which Walter Goehr was credited.
While it may appear to be additionally problematic because it is still ambiguous in that his son Alexander Goehr followed him into his line of work, there is no indication that his son was ever billed or credited as simply "Goehr" and therefore Goehr (composer and conductor) would be only a search term for the father and not for the son. However, to avoid any possible misunderstandings, a hatnote can be added atop the father's entry — Goehr (composer and conductor) redirects here. For his son, see Alexander Goehr.
As for fixing the "Goehr (composer and conductor)|Goehr" link at Princess Tam Tam so that it displays "Walter Goehr|Goehr" — since in addition to being credited as simply "Goehr", Walter Goehr was also credited as "G. Walter Goehr", "George Walter" and "Walter George", piping his alternative names as "Walter Goehr|alternative name" makes it appear at "What links here" that he was solely credited as "Walter Goehr" and does not give users the opportunity to discover in what projects he was credited under other names.
Finally, I always try to explain my edits as fully as I can in my edit summaries. At 03:18, 4 June 2017‎ I wrote, "Redirecting main header delineating the appellation of German musical personality, Goehr (composer and conductor) [per his billing in the credits of the 1935 Josephine Baker feature Princess Tam Tam], to its full form, Walter Goehr"[1]. I had hoped that it would have been able to resolve any confusion as to why that link and this redirect was created. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very well, but I think the problem that it is non-standard still stands. No reader is going to search up a term using parentheses. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 01:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, Goehr (composer and conductor) is simply a redirect with a parenthetical qualifier. Anyone searching for a film composer known simply as "Goehr" is going to type "Goehr" and will see, as one of the options, "Goehr (composer and conductor)". Redirects with parenthetical qualifiers are very common — there are hundreds of thousands of such redirects at various redirect categories, such as Category:Redirects from moves. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all well reasoned, but I'm not convinced that Walter is the primary topic for this search term, especially considering that Alexander is significantly more prominent. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 07:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter Goehr was not known simply as "Goehr", the credits from Princess Tam Tam displays it simply as Goehr due to space considerations. Someone who only has a surname to go off of to find an article would use the surname page Goehr, not type Goehr (composer and conductor) as a search term—it's too unwieldy. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of a spacing problem in the credits. In fact, there is plenty of unused space in the on-screen slide containing Goehr's name. European films of the 1920s and 1930s frequently made such artistic choices in depicting some names in large print as solely surnames, while other names were depicted in full form.
Additionally, the redirect "Goehr (composer and conductor)" is not merely a search term. As pointed out above, Walter Goehr used a number of professional names, among them, Goehr (composer and conductor), G. Walter Goehr, George Walter (composer) or Walter George (composer). Users clicking on "What links here" at Walter Goehr's article should have the opportunity to determine under which name form he was credited in each of his individual projects.
By replacing his piped credit "Goehr (composer and conductor)|Goehr" with the piped credit "Walter Goehr|Goehr", as was just done at Princess Tam Tam, makes it appear under "What links here" that he was credited on Princess Tam Tam as "Walter Goehr" and denies users the opportunity of making that determination.
As for Walter Goehr's son Alexander, also a composer and conductor, anyone typing simply "Goehr", will indeed find both father and son at the Goehr surname page. The chief purpose of the redirect "Goehr (composer and conductor)" is for use in the credits of Princess Tam Tam and any other film or recording that billed Walter Goehr as "Goehr".
If an uncertainty is still seen as existing, a hatnote atop Walter Goehr's article — Goehr (composer and conductor) redirects here. For his son, see Alexander Goehr — would resolve it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an article about a person with the name Goehr who was a composer and a conductor so it's completely harmless. Nobody will benefit from it's deletion and given that it was created by a human at least one person has found it useful in the past, so it's far from impossible other people will in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The harm ultimately derives from its ambiguity; Walter Goehr is not the only Goehr who was a composer and conductor, his son Alexander was too. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 6 June 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.

Persian Sea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Persian Sea

Chyalothrin

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 no consensus. I'm tagging it as a presumed misspelling rather than alternative name. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an alternative name for Cyhalothrin, and no mention of it is found in the article. It is not a likely misspelling nor a likely search term, as there have been zero pageviews in the past 90 days. No reason to keep an obvious error that nobody searches for. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 04:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:23, 6 June 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_6