Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 12

July 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2018.

Template:2017–18 Iraqi Premier League group tables
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 15:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Template:2017-18 Iraqi Premier League group 2 table → 2017–18 Iraqi Premier League (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017-18_Iraqi_Premier_League_group_2_table&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Template:2017-18 Iraqi Premier League group 1 table → 2017–18 Iraqi Premier League (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017-18_Iraqi_Premier_League_group_1_table&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Template:2017–18 Iraqi Premier League group 2 table → 2017–18 Iraqi Premier League (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Iraqi_Premier_League_group_2_table&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Template:2017–18 Iraqi Premier League group 1 table → 2017–18 Iraqi Premier League (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Iraqi_Premier_League_group_1_table&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Unnecessary redirect Hhkohh (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 16:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Apple Watch Series 4
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Apple Watch Series 4 → Apple Watch (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Watch_Series_4&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

There's a bunch of speculation about this product on the Internet, but Apple has not confirmed such a product exists and articles that discuss are open about the fact that they are reporting on rumors or speculating. Also no mention of this at the target article, so searchers won't find what they're looking for. There's no way to add anything to the article, given that there's no reliable sourcing, so this whole redirect is a crystal ball. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure, the Apple watch series 4 hasn't been announced yet, but before IOS 12 was announced, it was a redirect as well and the article it redirected to had no mention of IOS 12 before it was announced . I'm betting that a lot of people will use this redirect because there is a lot of speculation around the new device. You could argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but in this case, it is, because iOS 12 was a speculative redirect based on technology from the same company that will announce the Apple Watch Series 4. 344917661X (talk 18:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the redirect is getting quite a bit of traffic due to speculation around the device, so removing it won't help at all. 344917661X (talk 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment If reliable sources are speculating then it is possible to report on that speculation, and such reporting would be a clearly acceptable target of a redirect like this one. I have not investigated whether there is such speculation though, and even if there is it is a matter of editorial judgement whether it should be included. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is currently misleading due to no information on this series present at the target. Once it is announced, it should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK anyway. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete CRYSTAL-clear example of why hits alone aren't a good reason to keep a redirect. All those readers are looking for information about a hypothetical product—are we giving them anything at all? No! (That is, of course, a consequence of our policy against speculation.) I would really like to see these types of redirects SALTed. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose routine salting as some hypothetical products are clearly notable based on coverage in reliable sources - even if that coverage is entirely speculation and we should not be putting barriers in the way of creating articles and redirects about notable topics. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit it would be difficult to systematize such a thing, and that there could be undesirable consequences. Consider my previous utterance in the vein of "Will no one rid me..." My frustration is real, but I won't be pushing any proposals to that end. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete but don't salt, because of a high chance that such a product would be released in the near future. feminist (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q
 Closed discussion, see full discussion.
 * 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

The consensus here is keep, but on somewhat shaky ground; there's a scent of a WP:TRAINWRECK around this, but that's nearly unavoidable when dealing with mass creations. Numerically, the keeps and deletes are fairly close (for what it's worth, I don't think this needed another relisting, consensus was there beforehand) but the arguments for keep are simply stronger and more diverse.

The delete arguments largely fit into one of three baskets:
 * 1) Only some are notable/worth mentioning in the target
 * 2) Indiscriminate list, where will it end?
 * 3) Overly promotional for twitter

Some of the arguments for point 2 lean toward the train wreck side of things, but I do think it's a valid point, especially in consideration of item 3. I think the keep !voters do a fine job of arguing that a redirect from a twitter handle isn't de facto promotional, but isn't wrong by saying it feels a bit ickily promotional. I don't think anyone wants mass creation of other social media handles, but then again mass creation is hardly ever ideal. It's also worth mentioning that, while WP:NOTDIR is critical to the project, we are dealing with redirects here and not articles, which does shade things differently.

The keep arguments, on the other hand, largely fit into four baskets:
 * 1) Cheap
 * 2) Indiscriminate list, can't mass delete
 * 3) Helpful search option
 * 4) Unique identifier

There is clear conversation between the two sides; these are barely worth having but they're cheap, there are too many to keep but there are too many to delete, etc. Keep items 3 and 4 are similar to one another but work in concert to help get users to our content. Wikipedia isn't Google, and as noted below people come here looking for articles; these might help get them there.

WP:CHEAP isn't gospel, but it sets a good baseline for consideration, and nearly everyone admits to finding some utility in some of these sort of redirects. At the end of the day, though, I find the keep arguments to be stronger or unanswered.

To wrap things up, it's clear that there is fierce debate on this topic, which is to be expected. A broader discussion might be worthwhile for the utility of social media handle redirects, in particular whether some should be handled differently than others, but we've had a couple dozen editors opine here and elsewhere, so for now this feels good to me. This close should not bar individual nominations from this list should there be a meaningful rationale.

In addition to the above-mentioned directly related discussions (ANI, WT:RE, TfD), I've collected some tangentially related discussions mentioned by the participants below: ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AN "on Twitter" discussion (June 2012)
 * VPP "X on Twitter" discussion (July 2012)
 * @ladygaga RfD (October 2013)



Discussion
I think the problem in this case may be the indiscriminate, en masse creation of these. Some redirects of this kind, i.e. @realDonaldTrump mentioned by BD2412, are notable and actually explicitly mentioned within their respective targets. Therefore, deleting all of the recently created ones without prejudice to discriminate recreation may be the way to proceed. Others can be handled on a case by case basis and guidance can be developed (e.g. maybe require a mention within the article or extraordinary affinity). See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 23. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. All of these are excellent search terms and should remain. Those people who know about Twitter usernames will know to type the @ sign into the search field, so that makes these useful and an improvement to the encyclopedia. All should be kept, and if more are needed, then they should be created.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  03:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a class of redirects, these seem to be the wrong way round; don't people's and organizations Twitter pages have their names at the top? It gives undue prominence to one particular social media site that we normally remove from external links, leaving the official website (which may be a Blogspot blog) or if none, the Facebook page. And the community has deleted a number of "X on Twitter" pages as a result of a past group of AfDs, so there is rarely a specific target that would make the redirect especially useful; in those rare cases it will either already exist or can be recreated. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, many of those are reasonable search terms. Perhaps speedily as none of the pages whose deletion is being contemplated have been tagged, and there is not even a proper static list. —Kusma (t·c) 07:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirects nominated have not been tagged or even listed. This closure is without prejudice to a properly formatted nomination. Speaking now personally not as a closing administrator, I think the chances of consensus for deletion of all these redirects as a class is very unlikely and nomination of specific problematic redirects is more likely to be fruitful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2018
 * I can tag all the pages; there are a lot, however, and sometimes that is not done, especially at mfd. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about MfD, but at RfD it is an absolute requirement that every redirect nominated must be tagged (this can be done with AWB or similar if necessary) and that there is a definitive list of the redirects being nominated. As I mentioned in the closing statement, I suspect that renominating all the redirects as a class will result in either no consensus or a trainwreck, so think twice before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * List compiled above. I rarely invoke this because I'm a proponent of WP:PII, and this may be the first time I have done so explicitly, but WP:IAR. I believe it is pertinent that this remain open given the circumstances at hand. I lack the capacity time (and will to do so manually) to tag all the pages and must depart shortly; If anyone would like to tag them all through whatever means, that would be fine. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As the nominator it is your responsibility to tag the redirects or ensure that they are tagged. However, given that you have reopened I shall not revert and will now very strongly recommend speedy keep and discuss individually. There are many good redirects listed here, and there is no consensus in any of the multiple ongoing discussions (which is another reason why this should be closed) that redirects from Twitter handles are inappropiate as a class.  Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that this discussion has a static list and because it only targets the ones recently created, as opposed to en masse, I believe it is superior to the others (at least the ones I am aware of). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is still a mass nomination made without reference to the utility of the redirect, the redirects have not been tagged in a format that makes the target clear and does not provide an easy link to the page history or statistics. It is a less bad nomination than previously, but it is still a long way from good, and my recommendation that the redirects need to be considered individually to have any chance of arriving at a consensus till stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest doing this. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all Twitter names in which the Twitter username is not discussed at the target article. Since this group was created en masse, I would support the deletion of all of them since that was not considered when it was created. Some twitter usernames are notable enough to have some discussion on Wikipedia (@realDonaldTrump comes to mind), so someone searching it would have some content to match the search term. Otherwise, I feel not having that information would be a bit disappointing for someone seeking that out. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting take, and one which I also thought was important at first; however, I then realized that few if any people who search for an @-prefaced username will actually be looking for information on the Twitter account. They can find that on Twitter. I think that the vast majority of readers who type @(username) into a search field will be looking for information on the person, company, etc. that possesses the username. So as long as these redirects are correctly targeted, and the several I checked all appear to be targeted correctly, then I've concluded that not only do they do no harm, they are actually excellent search terms. I would sincerely hope that we can all agree on that.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  17:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One other thing to consider is that twitter usernames are unique, but names are not necessarily so, so searching on the username is a way to ensure you are taken to the article about the correct person or organisation, however it is titled on Wikipedia and whether they have a standalone article or are covered as part of a broader one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given all the discussion/arguments here (as well as all the (many) discussions (in various places)), I'm relisting this in the hopes of getting consensus. More over, redirects (even in mass nominations) should be tagged. I have now taken care of that. I've also removed a few redirects included in the table above that are not twitter handle redirects and were presumably caught among the others.
 * Keep. I've been on the fence regarding this discussion, torn between WP:CHEAP and the idea that this is unfairly promoting Twitter over other social media. Then a thought occured to me, apparently around the same time it occured to : that Twitter usernames are a more-effective disambiguator if the starting point of your search is a Twitter account (which it very well could be, given Twitter's importance in politics these days). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I know I posted my reasoning on one of the other discussions, but I can't find it right now. If someone goes to to the trouble of typing @name instead of name, it seems reasonable that they would be expecting to be taken to an article on the twitter account of the subject, rather than an article on the subject itself. In the very rare case that the twitter account is notable enough for an article, @whatever can be a plausible redirect (or the name of the article), but I can't think of any twitter account that applies to off the top of my head. Delete these thousand redirects as being useless. Natureium (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think someone would be looking for an encyclopaedia article about a twitter account? As you say there are none notable enough - even @sweden is an article about the project behind the account rather than the account. Personally I would expect to be taken to the operator of the account. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some twitter accounts are anonymous and have generated large amounts of controversy. I don't use twitter, so I'm not familiar with popular twitter accounts, but I know I've read news interest articles in the past, so I think it's possible that wikipedia could have an article or two on such an account. I don't think it's worth me combing through categories to find an example, so I could be wrong, but that's the only situation I think this redirect would be useful. Natureium (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously the best target will vary depending on the redirect, with articles or sections about somebody's/some organisation's social media use existing in some cases (e.g. Donald Trump on social media), as well as theoretically an article about a twitter account. So you are actually arguing that some of these redirects are potentially good and so they should not be deleted as a class. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment These redirects still have not been tagged. as the nominator it is your responsibility to tag them or arrange for them to be tagged if you cannot do it yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 22:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as redirects are cheap and per . -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CHEAP. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 02:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment running through these, some might be useful, and redirects are cheap, not sure if deleting them all en-mass is the right call. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Move your comments from June 24. Hhkohh (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a valid search term. GiantSnowman 09:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several different arguments given above and in related discussions for why these are useful (and therefore valid) search terms. Why do you believe differently? What makes a search term that people use to find articles on Wikipedia "not valid"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire Enough with calling all this junk “cheap”. Humans have to maintain this. All these pages have to go on some volunteer’s watchlist. Somebody has to revert vandalism. Somebody has to put them on lists for wikiprojects. Bots patrol them and volunteers check up on the bots. It’s all tiny little bits of work for somebody, times one billion, for zero payoff. This kind of busywork comes with a cost. Don’t @ me. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Honestly, there are just too many to vote delete all. At least a few of these are relevant enough that they are good redirects, where some of them probably would be fine for deleting. And just to clarify, redirect vandalism is not very common, and if it does happen it is usually caught by a bot. There is very little if any "work", which is why they are WP:CHEAP. « Gonzo fan2007  '' (talk)  @ 16:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as unique and widely used identifiers. It's actually not that uncommon for young people or forgetful people to not know the full name of a celebrity but remember their Twitter handle -- I've done it several times. This is made more common by the current trend of celebrities and organizations not using their real names (or only using their first names) in the "name" field of Twitter: See this list for a good look at that and you'll see that Lady Gaga, Drake, and many others have confusing "real name" fields. --Habst (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - the nomination is too large to deal with these redirects. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep per anon, I may have an opinion on some of the individual entries, but I would oppose a bulk deletion as at least some of them may be useful. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep per Gonzofan2007 and 122.108. Some of these point to articles with WP:RS coverage of the subject's Twitter activity (e.g. @Snowden, @DiGiorno, @narendramodi) and shouldn't be renominated. But still, this many R to article without mentions makes me uncomfortable; feels like an end run around WP:ELNO/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, especially if mention of the Twitter account was previously removed from the target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tavix. However, those tag of the famous people (like Donald Trump) can be kept. --B dash (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I could probably count on my fingers the number of Twitter handles worth having redirects for. @dril is the only one that springs to mind immediately. Nobody is going to come to Wikipedia looking for an Omani bank and type in @bankmuscat. What further concerns me is that many of these redirects are for businesses and it feels a bit ickily promotional. Adabow (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see someone wanting to double-check a celebrity account, though. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory linking Twitter handles to celebrities and companies. I am normally not a fan of bulk deletions like this since a few of these (e.g., Trump’s) may have particular notoriety and contain relevant content within the target articles.  But in the case of redirects, those few can be easily recreated after deletion. Rlendog (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Rlendog and others. Promoting Twitter to the exclusion of other social media is not a good idea, it's a slippery slope. ww2censor (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this promotional? There is nothing about these redirects that has anything to do with other social media - good, bad or indifferent. If you think that a redirect from another social media username is a good redirect then create it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Twitter tags essentially promote Twitter by the very fact they are Twitter tags just a other social media tags would likewise promote them. Unless they have some notability they should all go. You have misinterpreted what I wrote: If these are allowed to stay then others will only follow. I never suggested there should be others. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as procedural and per WP:CHEAP. feminist (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I pity the fool closing admin, but assuming these are all the actual Twitter usernames of the entities involved, make sure they're tagged with R from Twitter username and move on. (Where there are specific articles on an entity's social media or Twitter use, of course, point there instead.) There's no requirement to my knowledge that R from URL redirects involve webpages discussed on their target articles, and there should not be such a requirement here. Neither is this about "promoting" Twitter or any other website. It's simply about providing access to readers. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Randomly found this after looking for a song, Anyway like I said on either a previous RFD or ANI there is no need to have Twitter handles here .... what next Facebook or Insta handles ? ...., As an example if you're looking for Dominoes Pizza then search exactly that it's not hard and it's certainly not rocket science!, Not one person above has provided a valid reason for keeping other than "It's cheap" which isn't a valid reason for keeping so uless someone can provide a valid reason for keeping then it should obviously be deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are actually several reasons provided above in addition to CHEAP (which, in the absence of a clear reason to delete, is a valid reason to keep) - for example not every twitter handle trivially matches to an article title. Facebook and Istagram handles are not relevant here (WP:WAX), but if they are useful search terms (as some twitter handles clearly are) then there is absolutely no reason why we should not have them. The bottom line is that some twitter handles possibly not be useful search terms is not a justification for deleting the whole class of redirects which includes some that clearly are useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - While there are always exceptions, for the most part this is an indiscriminate list that will simply grow exponentially if it stays. Every Tom Dick and Harry twitter account will soon follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - My biggest issue with these, are that there is a similar "username" dynamic on Facebook, as well as other websites. What makes Twitter more in line with Wikipedia. There may be some articles that mention the twitter handles, and potentially could be kept (But shouldn't be made specifically because they were mentioned.)  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are good arguments raised on both sides. What I find useful is the issue that Twitter handles are unambiguous and can thus point directly to a person or company without having to worry about disambiguation. On a personal level, I follow God on Twitter (@TheTweetOfGod) and his real persona was accessible via his Twitter handle (for which there isn't a redirect with a leading '@'). I see no harm in having these redirects and are not convinced by the argument that this somehow gives one social media platform an advantage over another.  Schwede 66  21:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Wiki Project Med Foundation
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 20%23Wiki Project Med Foundation

Avargal (2017 film)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 20%23Avargal (2017 film)