Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Wikipedia:YELL: meant to link to Wp:shout not the redirect being considered for deletion.
Line 21: Line 21:


As far as I can see, this page has only be referred to once but it's strange because it occurred in 2013 and this page was only created in October 2021. I don't think it is known to be a redirect or what the connection is between yelling and assuming good faith. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this page has only be referred to once but it's strange because it occurred in 2013 and this page was only created in October 2021. I don't think it is known to be a redirect or what the connection is between yelling and assuming good faith. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
:I agree that isn’t a good target. Maybe the target of [[WP:YELL]] would be better but I have my doubts.--[[Special:Contributions/65.93.193.134|65.93.193.134]] ([[User talk:65.93.193.134|talk]]) 06:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
:I agree that isn’t a good target. Maybe the target of [[WP:SHOUT]] would be better but I have my doubts.--[[Special:Contributions/65.93.193.134|65.93.193.134]] ([[User talk:65.93.193.134|talk]]) 06:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting]], like the redirect [[WP:SHOUT]]. I also don't really see the connection between "Yell" and the current target, seems like it would [[WP:R#ASTONISH|Surprise]] anyone linking to it. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.80|192.76.8.80]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.80|talk]]) 10:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting]], like the redirect [[WP:SHOUT]]. I also don't really see the connection between "Yell" and the current target, seems like it would [[WP:R#ASTONISH|Surprise]] anyone linking to it. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.80|192.76.8.80]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.80|talk]]) 10:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)



Revision as of 21:19, 18 December 2021

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2021.

Phi Kappa Alpha (local)

There are now six groups with a reasonable claim to the name Phi Kappa Alpha, and for clarity I've created that as a DAB (setindex). The Freed-Hardeman University group had captured two variants of the name for an article that merely goes to a section of the university's article. It will be more clear to delete these so readers have to choose at the DAB page level. Jax MN (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phi kappa alpha

We've determined there are at least six groups with this name. I've created a DAB (setindex) page with all of them, at Phi Kappa Alpha, including "Freed-Hardeman". It makes this redirect unnecessary and confusing on two counts. First, the use of lower case is confusing here, and normally not done for Greek Letter Organization articles. Second, because Phi Kappa Alpha (local) already redirects to it, it is duplicative and would certainly merit a merger, if not deletion of both. (Note: In light of the DAB I will ask to delete that second redirect, also, with an additional request.) Jax MN (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:YELL

As far as I can see, this page has only be referred to once but it's strange because it occurred in 2013 and this page was only created in October 2021. I don't think it is known to be a redirect or what the connection is between yelling and assuming good faith. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that isn’t a good target. Maybe the target of WP:SHOUT would be better but I have my doubts.--65.93.193.134 (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Biggs

"Mr Biggs" is a Nigerian fastfood restaurant chain and a stage name of Ronald Isley. It seems that Isley is the primary topic. I think that variations of Mr/Mr. and Bigg/Biggs/Bigg's should all go to the same place - either to Isley with a hatnote there to the restaurant, or maybe to a dab. MB 21:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Catholic Church Authority

I do not know what it this redirect is supposed to refer to, and what is mentioned in the Catholic Church section of the article it leads to does not relate to the redirect. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-level projection

Not mentioned at the target, GScholar suggests this phrase is common across many disciplines, not just linguistics. Delete unless justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have reverted the change of target done when the discussion was on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Dragoniez, now that the term has been explicitly defined there. I don't see a lot of uses online that aren't related to generative grammar, and there appear to be none here on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'nam

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Should we change this redirect to Vietnam or some other page, keep its target as it is, or delete it? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 'Nam is a common nickname for the Vietnam War [1], [2], [3], [4]. Loafiewa (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I think when this term is used it's more usually in reference to the war than the country itself, so I think the target is correct. But I doubt it's a common search term so I'm minded to delete on that basis. WaggersTALK 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added the previous RfD. Also note that 65.92.246.43 has added Vietnam and Vietnam War to the Nam dab page as per their own suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat

Formerly used in Lord Lovat as redirect to the 13th Lord (which is by some considered the 15th): the fact is the actual 15th Lord Lovat is a different person (a WWII veteran born in 1911, as the text itself says). I fixed the link in Lord Lovat, now the redirect is quite useless as it is not mentioned as target by any page and IMHO should be deleted. Leofbrj (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas parade

DELETE per WP:REDLINK; as determined from the discussion on the talk page Talk:Santa Claus parade, this article is about Santa Claus parades and not Christmas parades in general. Therefore the redirect is misleading, and should be redlinked to encourage creation of an article on the general topics. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - At most only half of the parades discussed in the body of the Santa Claus parade article talks are actually named "Santa Claus parade". The rest have various names, including Thanksgiving Day parade, Christmas parade, etc., and it's not at all clear whether Santa Claus is even featured in them. Someone who looks up "Christmas parade" in Wikipedia ought to be redirected to the Santa Claus parade article which has at least some information about the concept rather being sent to a search page on which "Santa Claus parade" may or may not be the first entry listed. As far as thinking that seeing a redlink in an article will encourage someone to create a "Christmas parade" article, it's likely that the new article would contain much of the same information as the Santa Claus one since that one is so unfocused. Indyguy (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was determined on the talk page, that the article is about Santa parades and not Christmas parades in general. Thus, this redirect is inappropriate. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly mentions the redirect title in the lead, suggesting that this is a probable search term (unless if for some reason the alternate title is not correct). Aasim (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the point. It is incorrect because Christmas parades do not always have Santas, thus "Christmas parade" is a greater topic, and not restricted to Santa parades. It would be like redirecting President of the United States to Donald Trump, he is one president, but not all presidents. Thus this is one type of Christmas parade, but not all types of Christmas parade. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and enjoy the red link. Christmas parades aren't all about Santa, you know. Chumpih. (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Size

I sampled pages linking to the redirect. I found that users refer it to the other page Wikipedia:Article size. Furthermore, WP:SIZE currently redirects to that page. To avoid confusion, especially from those wanting to just lowercase "size" while typing, the "Size" should also redirect, i.e. retarget, to "Wikipedia:Article size". Alternatively, it can become a disambiguation page, but I'm unsure whether it would be often referred to the "size of Wikipedia" itself. George Ho (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC); edited, 23:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate makes sense. I refer to article size a few times a year, and the size of Wikipedia is more of a fun-to-know thing that doesn't help editors. But it's pretty neat and worth not hiding either. Remembering that I need to type ARTICLESIZE insteaf of SIZE uses extra brain cells I can't spare. If no disambig, SIZE should go to the article size page. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article size and remedy the 94 existing links to the page as necessary. This would be an arguable case for disambiguation given the broad and simple nature of the term. However, over 3500 extant links exist to WP:SIZE (making it unwise to change both due to the required labor and the trouble it would cause for this who use this regularly; unfortunately this seems to have developed a primacy and it is therefore too late for what would be ideal projectspace disambiguation in this case), and the upper and lowercase version should practically point to the same place. WP:SIZEWP and WP:WPSIZE would serve well as projectspace shortcuts for the current target. Moreover, a hatnote listing the current target (and anything else relevant enough) can be placed at WP:Article size as a navigational aid for those who may be looking for a different page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide gas

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 keep. There's no point in opening another RfD for this redirect when the previous one was closed just two weeks ago, and especially considering how everyone overwhelmingly supported the status quo. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It seems to have multiple terms that called as "cyanide gas". Retarget to Cyanide, or Delete to search results. 49.48.147.206 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 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.

Mobile-only bank

While all mobile-only services may be online-only, not all online-only services are mobile-only. The target article doesn't specifically mention online banking services that can only be used through smartphones. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mucholapka

No idea why this is targetting Die Glocke (hoax) or Die Glocke. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per below. This is the nickname of a ruined structure in Poland that is apparently associated with urban legends (or hoaxes?) that may be related to Die Glocke [5]. Still, that's not discussed in the article, and as far as I can see is unlikely to ever be. – Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) This is being discussed at greater length below: #The Henge. – Uanfala (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As SpinningSpark observed below, we have a mention of the topic at Miłków, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, so that looks like a potential target. However, there remains some uncertainty about the best place on Wikipedia for the topic to be described, and about whether this topic should be described in the first place. Better content may get added to a different article, or it may get removed from Miłków, Lower Silesian Voivodeship altogether – the search results would automatically reveal the suitable target, if there is one, and they also happen to provide a navigational path to the Wiktionary entry for the much more common generic meaning of the word. – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miłków, Lower Silesian Voivodeship. This is a Polish word meaning Flytrap. It is referring to the same structure in Die Glocke called The Henge. The article on the Polish village is the best place to make that connection. SpinningSpark 17:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muchotapka

No idea why this is targetting Die Glocke (hoax) or Die Glocke. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Henge

Target section in Die Glocke (hoax) (I just moved the article so Die Glocke can target the more notable real things at Glocke) was removed ten years ago. At present, this is just confusing. Delete. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]