Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 29

September 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2018.

New York population
 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 keep  . (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * New York population → New York (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_population&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Target is a disambiguation page with no section named "Population". &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 23:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This only happened because of the result of page naming standards. i.e. New York is now New York (state). I made it a dab page. 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the section link. It is a very plausible search term, but ambiguous whether the reader is looking for the population of the city, the state or the metropolitan area (or, less likely, any of the other places named New York). The dab page serves them best in this regard I think. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Retarget Keep see below  to New York (state). Now that New York (state) has been moved, it should be normal to update the redirect's target. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dab page doesn't contain the relevant information but makes it fairly easy to find, whereas deleting this would needlessly inhibit the reader. Your logic isn't self-explanatory at all, and I'm concerned you've misunderstood the background here: New York (state) was moved because there was a consensus that "New York" on its own is ambiguous, so it would follow that "New York population" is ambiguous too; you're free of course to disagree with that consensus but applying the same logic here would lead to either a keep or delete !vote. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Orthodox jew
 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 keep  . (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Orthodox jew → Orthodox Judaism (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_jew&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Upper case: Orthodox Jew

Lower case: Orthodox jew

I would like to delete the one using lower case. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as . Reasonable mistake. Does no harm. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 23:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The names of religions are proper names. They are capitalized. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * if we had an article at Orthodox jew it would not be appropriate. But a mis-capitalization is an appropriate type of redirect. On top of that, it's a harmless redirect. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm dropping this discussion because I don't understand the various ways "search" is carried out, . Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * —I've thought about this more. Please see my post here. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * and you're still not getting it. Wikipedia search is case sensitive (except maybe for that first character?), Wikipedia search is not the only way people get to an article. And keeping a harmless redirect that is linked externally can only help the project in navigating to articles. There's nothing wrong with the redirect being discussed. It doesn't go to the wrong target. It's not demeaning the religion. And people obviously use it to navigate based on the pageviews. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep precisely for the reason of Mr. Guye. @Bus stop That is why it is called "miscapitalization". Debresser (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Serving what purpose, ? Searching for "Orthodox jew" (lowercase) still gets one to the Orthodox Judaism article. I know this for a fact because I have twice "Blanked the page" at the lowercase redirect and then "Searched" in our "search box" for "Orthodox jew" (lowercase) and I have still gotten to the Orthodox Judaism article. (Please see here and here.) That is why I am asking you—what purpose does the lowercase redirect serve? The lowercase form serves an offensive purpose. See dictionary dot com: "(lowercase) Offensive. to bargain sharply with; beat down in price (often followed by down)" Of course it is a "Reasonable mistake". is correct about that. But I am asking: what purpose is served by allowing that mistake to persist? It seems to me that the lowercase redirect should be deleted. When the lowercase search term is entered into our search box the redirect which could and should serve to redirect to the Orthodox Judaism article should be the uppercase redirect. The lowercase redirect is serving no purpose that I can detect. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we must, we can add a note to the bottom emphasizing that it's a redirect from miscapitalization, and not a presumption of someone's offensive search. Redirects are cheap. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Same question to you —what purpose does it serve? Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * People just aren't very careful about capitalization in doing searches, especially since it is not really necessary in major search engines. We are just giving one extra too, to make sure they get where they want to go. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral. I would probably still prefer to keep. But I don't care that much, and apparently User:Bus stop finds it enormously offensive—and has shown it won't make much of a difference to the search results. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW Bus stop's analysis of the impact of deletion is based on a fundamentally wrong assumption (that the internal search engine is the only way anyone would reach this redirect). Regarding offensiveness, WP:RNEUTRAL firmly applies here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —I don't find it "enormously offensive" but why go there? There has to be a reason for doing something. (I think.) We don't just make up redirects willy nilly. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. Unlike most major websites on the internet, Wikipedia is case sensitive. Forcing people to use the correct capitalisation will not help them find the content they are looking for, will not help us improve the encyclopaedia and may result in duplicated or otherwise undesirable content from people who haven't been taken to the existing article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that that is not true, . I have twice blanked the page. See here and here. After each instance of blanking the page I have used our search window to search for "Orthodox jew" (lowercase). I was taken in both instances to the Orthodox Judaism article and the redirect indicated was the uppercase redirect, by which I mean this one. Therefore I am asking this question: What purpose is the lowercase redirect serving? If we know it adds no benefit to search capability and if we know that it is potentially offensive in some usages then wouldn't deletion of that redirect be a no-brainer? It has been argued that redirects are cheap. But the entire cycle of creation and deletion of redirects is cheap. If you delete this redirect I think you will find that search capability will not suffer at all. I can't delete it or I would have. But I think an administrator should be able to delete it. If search capability suffers after deletion then I would agree that it should be re-created, as I completely agree that a vastly overriding concern here is finding the target article. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The internal search engine is only one of many ways people search and browse Wikipedia - some of which (for example links, direct URL entry, some external search utilities) are case sensitive. What happens if you search for a title that doesn't exist (whether a differently capitalised redirect exists or not) depends on a combination of (at least) your device, browser, search method and user access level (e.g. whether you are autoconfirmed). In some cases you are taken directly to the search engine, in others you are invited to create a page and/or invited to search. There shouldn't be links to this page from current versions of pages on English Wikipedia (the only links reported by what links here), but there is a high likelihood of links from other places on the internet and deleting this redirect will break those links without benefiting anybody. In short, this redirect is useful for exactly the same reasons why other Redirects from miscapitalisations are useful redirects - as repeatedly explained to you above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —you say "Wikipedia is case sensitive". But a search from "jews" (lowercase and plural) takes us to Jews without a redirect. And a search from "jew" (lowercase and singular) uses this redirect. It is not lowercase. This redirect is serving no purpose. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article titles are case sensitive (excluding the first character). Some methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia are case sensitive (as explained previously). Therefore Wikipedia is case sensitive and redirects from other capitalisations are useful. You appear to be not hearing what you are being told. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * —you say article titles are case sensitive "excluding the first character" but if one searches for "Ashkenazi jews", "Sephardi jews", or "Mizrahi jews", one is taken to the relevant article without a redirect. This redirect is unnecessary. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again you are (deliberately?) ignoring that the internal search engine is not the only way that people find Wikipedia articles. Following a link to Sephardi jews for example will not take you to the article you are looking for. Please listen to what everybody is telling you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have thousands of similar Redirects from miscapitalisations, all of which are harmless and potentially useful. The burden of proof lies on those who wish to change the status quo, so rather than asking (repeatedly) what purpose this serves, we ought to ask what the benefits of deleting it would be, to which the answer is none. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guye. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the rationales above. Redirects from miscapitalizations are quite common, and this is a harmless redirect. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep redirect was created in 2005. We don't delete old R from miscapitalization redirects based on an argument that they are miscapitalized. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MOSAKUTTY
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 8%23MOSAKUTTY

Tim and Eric's Trillion Dollar Movie
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> 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  . Deryck C. 09:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Tim and Eric's Trillion Dollar Movie → Tim & Eric (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_and_Eric%27s_Trillion_Dollar_Movie&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Deletion; "Tim and Eric's Trillion Dollar Movie" does not even exist; it isn't even mentioned in the directed "Tim and Eric" article.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There was speculation that a film of this title would be released as a sequel to Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie but that speculation dates entirely in the period 2012-2014 so it appears it's not actually happening. Sometimes speculation like this appears in reliable sources and can be notable enough for mention in an article, but I'm not finding anything of that nature on this occasion to add to an article. This means that the redirect is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.