Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 376: Line 376:
*'''Delete''' all, misleading. —[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 12:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' all, misleading. —[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 12:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
*:How is it misleading to be taken to the content you are looking for? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
*:How is it misleading to be taken to the content you are looking for? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
*::How could you possibly know it's what they're looking for? —[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 20:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


====Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)====
====Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)====

Revision as of 20:09, 21 September 2022

September 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2022.

Narrowing (computer science)

Following up on an issue from a recent Rfd, this redirect seems like {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} given the existence of Narrowing of algebraic value sets which seems like a related topic arguably also within the realm of computer science, and should be retargeted to the disambiguation page Narrowing (and the dab page updated) if we can identify a good way to disambiguate these two topics. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church

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 14:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this name being used to designate thos organisation. I could not find a RS saying this organisation uses this name.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt because of the hesitation to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:27, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes hartfieldi

Faxonius hartfieldi was moved from genus Orconectes to Faxonius in 2017. Also the redirect page contains Categories which is just weird. As the redirect will take users to the wrong genus, it should be deleted. Then, hopefully the red link will prompt somebody into creating a species page that can contain the required Categories 86.17.100.205 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either retarget to Faxonius or soft delete until a Faxonius sp. article is made so that we retarget to that article instead.. The genus was only relatively recently changed, so the old binomial name remains a plausible search term. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another attempt at retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orconectes australis

It is generally acepted practice that non-fossil taxa should generally be redlinked to encourage article creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, we can use the {{ill}} templates to link to matching articles in French and Portuguese, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These have a history as articles, but were turned into redirects. They were stubs no inline citations, but the respective French and Portuguese articles are stubs with no inline citations (and no information beyond what was in the English articles). I don't see any point to linking foreign language articles when the English article could just be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore articles without prejudice to Afd if anyone desires. According to the edit history these were merged into the current target, but while their redirection coincided with a big addition of content to the target, no content other than maybe a reference was really copied over, so these were really blank and redirects. As with the nom, I have come to understand that general practice is to avoid redirecting species names to the respective genus articles in order to encourage article creation, so let's return these to stubs so they may be expanded, or deleted if there is later consensus that these stubs merit it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Guatemala

Nonexistent title, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Prime Minister of the United States. Privybst (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete for obvious reasons. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The President of Guatemala is the Head of State which is what people unfamiliar with a certain country's specific system of government are searching for. While there is no office called Prime Minister of Guatemala, the President is the Head of State and Head of Government for Guatemala so for someone searching for the equivalent role to Head of State, it would be more useful to take the to this with a {{R from incorrect title}} than to delete. TartarTorte 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Politics of Guatemala (where Government of Guatemala redirects). The lead there concisely explains that the President of Guatemala is both head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. and goes on to note who exercise executive and judicial power in the country. Whatever they are looking for they will find it either there or one click away. Second choice is to keep per TatarTotte. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per Thryduulf. It's not ideal, but people who are typing in "PM of Guatemala" are obviously looking for information on the government of the country, particularly the head of state. But it's dangerous to conflate PM and president as synonyms. Therefore, taking them to the government page will explain the form of government while also providing quick access to the page on the president of the country. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

The targeted section no longer exists; plus, the characters name is "Bron-Char" with one n. TNstingray (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Brexit

I understand that this is from a move and therefore gets a ton of page views (especially because it is linked to from certain places), but this is a WP:SURPRISE to me. I was expecting an article about how Brexit has impacted the UK, not how Brexit was predicted to have impacted the UK. I would love if there were an appropriate place to retarget to, but otherwise this should be deleted under WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. TartarTorte 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Phelps

Not mentioned at redirect target, and not a notable character (only appeared in a small role in one TV episode, and not expected to appear again). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Foster (2023 film)

NPGP

Did a search but could not see how this redirect and the target relates. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is an abbreviation of "North Pacific Garbage Patch", an alternative name for the target. I've added a sourced mention of that name to the lead (it was already used in a picture caption, but not introduced). The primary topic on Google is the National Poverty Graduation Programme (a programme of the Pakistani government), but we have absolutely no content on that at all. If we do get content about that (it seems notable at first glance) then this redirect can be retargetted there and a hatnote to the present target added but until then this is the most helpful target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Idoghor Melody: NPGP means North Pacific Garbage Patch, see for instance this Nature article which uses the acronym 41 times. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, who first described the patch, in 1988) explains at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/mar18/nop14-ocean-garbage-patches.html that the North Pacific Garbage Patch is one of several other patches, there is another one in the South Pacific Ocean for instance. Syced (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way selection system

No mention of this phrase in the target article. The redirect was created in 2011 a few minutes after the original article was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-way_selection_system&oldid=441118250) - the topic is one of many student concerns that eventually led to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The phrase is not notable - for example Google search "Two-way selection system" has only 1,250 results, with no mention of China in the top ten results. DarylKayes (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming"

Another 105 of these. Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming", Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Target subjects no longer "upcoming", etc. These redirects have no significant edit history other than redirections, and do/should not have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete, I don't mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is in regards to Sister (upcoming film) unless specified otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both Sister (upcoming film) and Sister (Upcoming film) should be deleted. The film eventually came out under the name Music (2021 film), and the name had been changed before production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page views alone should not be the deciding factor in deletion discussions. These redirects are inherently inaccurate and misleading to readers, and it has been the long-standing consensus to delete these redirects regardless of page views and closeness to release date. FYI, Pinocchio came out four days ago, so of course you're going to see views in the past 30 days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. The purpose of redirects is to help people find the content they are looking for, and large numbers of page views are the most objective evidence that they are doing that it is possible. We routinely keep {{R from move}} redirects and being moved only four days ago is an extremely strong reason to keep. Consensus can, and evidently should change if it is has previously been used to justify actively harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: per Thrydullf, without prejudice to smaller renoms. I think that there is probably a difference between something like Black and Blue (upcoming film) which hasn't been upcoming for about 3 years, whereas Pinocchio (upcoming film) is no longer upcoming as of a few days ago. TartarTorte 13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assessment by Thryduulf for the keeps and deletes and reassess. I'd probably go one step further and wonder if the nominator be restricted from making these bulk nominations — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! Hasn't been a problem until the above WP:TRAINWRECK-causing comment. Plus I whole heartedly disagree about keeping these due to page views: no incoming links = me more page views, and consensus has agreed time and time again that once these are no longer "upcoming", the "upcoming" redirects get deleted. If anything, the fact that I have to do so many bulk nominations proves the fact that there's several problematic redirects with this issue that need to get removed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no incoming links = [no] more page views is a nice theory but it completely ignores how the world actually works. We can control incoming links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, we have no control over links elsewhere and incoming links from external sites are almost certainly driving the long-tail of views on many of these redirects which almost certainly haven't had internal links other than these redirects pointing to them for months (and the redirects with essential zero views demonstrate that the redirects themselves don't cause the views). We also have no control over things like people's memories and bookmarks. If you don't want a bulk nomination to end as a trainwreck then do a proper WP:BEFORE and verify that there are no factors, such as wildly differing page views, that mean someone would plausibly have different opinions about different redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My responses: Links to old revisions on third party sites are not our problem, people bookmarking old revisions should know better, etc. and a bunch of stuff that has already been said before to a point where everyone is beating a dead horse. All of these claims about users and computers are a bunch of theoretical red herrings that result from lack of users maintaining their own computer's settings whereas this nomination is to fix Wikipedia at the source. But, no matter, I'm going to take a nice, long break, and let you all sort this out and try your best to dispute previous consensuses and precedence until your fingers get numb from typing to prove finding that golden WP:CCC in a haystack can be accomplished. I'm done. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, this is getting out of hand. If you won't support the CSD proposal, at least consider acknowledging the consensus from innumerable discussions in the past that page views are irrelevant. Besides, even with your massive comment above consensus is still leaning on deleting, so it's clear your points are not persuasive to most editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: Consensus is not binding, and especially not ones that run directly contrary to the basic principles of redirects - namely that they exist to help people find the content they are looking for. I get that you are unhappy that people don't agree with you about your proposal at WT:CSD (which almost everyone agrees fails 2-3 of the four requirements) but that's not relevant here.
    @Steel1943: Links on other sites are not to "old revisions" they are made to the title of the article that is current at the time the link is made and they are not theoretical concerns - the page view stats prove that. And is not webmasters (the people who can fix links) that are the main issue (although they can't fix them if they can't find the new article) it's the readers of those sites who cannot. It is our responsibility to avoid breaking links unnecessarily, and deleting redirects that are not in use is not fixing Wikipedia at source it is breaking Wikipedia for downstream users for no benefit to ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Current revision", "old revision", whatever ... it's still a link to a revision rather than the live article. Still disagree with the "...avoid breaking links..." comment for reasons I already stated, but whatever. Any who, my ability to discuss semantics has been totally exhausted. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I just noticed the repeat accusation that I failed to do a "proper WP:BEFORE" in the previous comment, I'll address it again with the same point I made in my previous statement: I checked the edit histories and the incoming links prior to the nomination; that was all the WP:BEFORE necessary, considering page views are irrelevant for the reasons already stated in all the other previously linked nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to establish some speedy deletion standard for stuff like this already, many if not all of these spaces might be needed again eventually.★Trekker (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that, then read the WP:NEWCSD requirements and craft a proposal at WT:CSD that meets all four of them. Nothing anybody has suggested so far has done anything other than clearly failed objective and/or uncontestable and commenters are strongly divided about whether it is frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Highly unlikely that these will be needed or used. If found that some are needed, creating one on a need basis is easy. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown above that many of these are both used and needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the ones that have been shown to have a significant amount of views. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: They all are general housekeeping as they are no longer "upcoming". The "upcoming" is misleading now. — YoungForever(talk) 18:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, for reasons repeatedly explained, they aren't actually misleading and inconveniencing literally thousands of readers is not "housekeeping". Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree, if they have premiered/released, they are not "upcoming" anymore. — YoungForever(talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed they aren't upcoming anymore, but that only explains why they will at some point cease to be useful redirects (hence why many of these can be safely deleted) but that point doesn't arrive the moment the page is moved. In most cases they remain good and necessary redirects for somewhere between a couple of weeks and a few months, but the above list shows that the whole range is between about a week and a couple of years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and I also support the CSD proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thryduulf's assessment above. I don't see a compelling reason to delete potentially (or actually) useful redirects just because they are incorrect, which is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf assessment per above; if a reader doesn't read enough of the first sentence to ascertain that the film is not upcoming, they almost certainly haven't read the article anyway. I do agree with deleting the ones that do not involve old links, as they are faintly misleading. J947 † edits 23:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not sympathetic to the view that deletion breaks external links (and I also support the CSD proposal). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That deletion breaks any external links that are extant is unarguable fact, disagreement is over whether that is something we should care about. Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do." Same here, but editors have differing opinions about how to go about this. For example, whereas you believe the deletion of these redirects causes harm, I believe the existence of these redirects causes harm. All of this has been explained above by both sides, but I think I've said enough to hopefully avoid this discussion going into a tangent of their opinions of Wikipedia as a whole since this discussion will end up being about the closer's assessment of the arguments instead of how passionate any editors are regarding their sides of the argument. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that none of the delete !voters have responded to Thryduulf's argument earlier than These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. (which would be equally valid if I replaced the word "misleading" with "harmful"), and in fact many of them amount to little more than pure votes. In the absense of any refutation to that argument, it seems clear that Thryduulf's assessment' is preferable to deletion.
    Finally, a few general responses to the discussion above: this is not a WP:TRAINWRECK, as the discussion is splitting cleanly between two outcomes despite the large number of redirects nominated. Nor is it correct to accuse Steel1943 of failing to do a proper WP:BEFORE; the point of BEFORE by my understanding is that people should make an effort to discover information that could convince them the page should no longer be deleted before starting a deletion discussion; since Steel1943 evidently thinks page views are irrelevant (regardless of whether you agree with them) they do not constitute that kind of information and there was no obligation to look at them. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)

Seems the subject of the redirect's target was cancelled, meaning the disambiguator or the redirect is erroneous to a point where it is not helpful. Also, a related redirect, Unreal Tournament (cancelled video game), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer useful. --Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 242 hits in the last 30 days shows that this is very much still useful, longer term stats show almost no slowing down over the entire year so deletion would be actively harmful to many readers. The target explains that the video game is no longer upcoming so there is nothing misleading here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page views were most likely caused by incoming links from the "article" namespace, which have now all been bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If your crystal ball is working perfectly then in a month or so after this RfD is kept the evidence will show it is no longer needed and can be deleted having harmed nobody in the meanwhile. If, as is actually more likely, views are coming from a variety of sources then the stats will show that and we will learn that we were correct not to be hasty and avoided unnecessarily harming the project by needlessly inconveniencing readers. Either way, there is absolutely no need engage in speculation or guesswork. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My crystal ball never worked, so I threw it away. Instead, I go by what has happened in every other discussion like this, also known as "precedence". Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which as you should know has absolutely no influence over what will happen in the future. Just because we got it wrong in the past doesn't mean we will continue to get it wrong in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There comes a point in like everything, Wikipedia included, where there's enough evidence to validate something happening again. With the years of previous nominations, I think the point has been made strong enough where these repeat conversations are akin to ... beating a dead horse. But alas, this place has to be a place of controversy, so let's aim for WP:CCC since it's fun, apparently. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is not "fun", it is however important to attempt to prevent harming the encyclopaedia where it is possible to do so. When consensus regarding these redirects applies the same as consensus regarding every other type of redirect everyone will benefit and nobody will be harmed. Until that time I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "...I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers." Same here, except we have different ideas of what "harm[s] readers": Whereas you believe the removal of these redirects harms readers, I believe keeping these redirects harms readers. But either way, with all due respect, I'm trying to avoid having this discussion go into WP:BLUDGEONING territory, so I'm most likely going to end this conversation here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943's crystal ball. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film) could equally point to Joel Kinnaman, who is also apparently slated to star in this film. The Bricklayer (upcoming film) could equally point to Nina Dobrev or Aaron Eckhart, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Revolver (upcoming film) could equally point to Maya Hawke or Ethan Hawke, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Does not make sense to point this redirect to only one of the various notable people who will be part of this subject. (Also, see Draft:The Bricklayer (upcoming film) or Draft:Revolver (upcoming film).) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect from film to director.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Revolver (upcoming film) and The Bricklayer (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paradoctor: If possible, please provide a guideline, essay, or previous discussion(s)that states this is precedence. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We redirect from creative works to their creators all the time. Unless the work is notable on its own, that's where I expect to find encyclopedic information about the work, as opposed to the narrow view from a production employee. Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for the explanation behind your rationale. As such, I just reviewed the verbiage of {{R from work}}, and since the template includes the verbiage "...or subject related to the work..., I believe there could be an equal claim that this template could be used for an actor slated to appear in the film. There's not really any evidence that I can see that proves the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for when searching these terms; without this solidified connection, this redirect poses the WP:XY ambiguous issue I had stated in my initial rationale. (Also, I'm going to attempt to merge all of these discussions since I think repeating the same statement on all is a bit cumbersome for both of us.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    merge all of these discussions I'd appreciate that. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Discussions merged together. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    First, I didn't say that the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for. I said that is where information about the work belongs and is expected to be found.
    there could be an equal claim Not at all. XY would apply among actors, sure. But the director is the unique, central role in a production. They are the author, they decide who works on the film, and they decide what the finished film looks like. Everyone else's contributions are subordinate to that.
    On a different tack, let's assume the film was released, but is not notable. Following your reasoning, we couldn't have any redirects from films to actors or directors. Paradoctor (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow your rationale, but there's still the issue of multiple choices of targets. Why not target, say, the production studio or producer, for example instead? Those could potentially be as closely connected to these subjects as the director. And even then, films have been notorious at times to change directors while in production. In addition, the aforementioned actors in my nomination statement also have their respective films mentioned in their filmographies, meaning the films are mentioned, but apparently not identified by more than just their name, in multiple articles. This is why I was hoping that either there was a policy/essay or precedence in place for this already; as far as I can tell, there's really no established place where these redirects should target, meaning the default resolution would be to delete them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Film producer: the director makes the creative decisions during the making of the production, the producer typically manages logistics and business operations Fine print aside, the director calls the shots about what the end result looks like.
    potentially be as closely connected to these subjects That's fine print. Edge cases exist, but they don't define the norm.
    change directors while in production Also fine print. A film can have several directors, so we decide on the merits of the case. The norm is one director, and AFAIK, this is the case with the three redirects under consideration.
    the default resolution As I pointed out before, that is not what in practice happens. I note that you didn't address my "different tack", either. The way I see it, what you are asking here for is a substantial policy discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "that is not what in practice happens" ... That's the problem, I don't see any information about what happens in practice anywhere. My "default resolution" is in regards to what usually occurs to redirects that are deemed ambiguous per WP:XY, such as the issue I see with these. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virginie-Occidentale

There's no special affinity between the French language and West Virginia. TartarTorte 00:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_19&oldid=1111587833"