Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 237: Line 237:
*'''Retarget to [[Queensbury]]''' as plausible typo --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 00:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Retarget to [[Queensbury]]''' as plausible typo --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 00:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Retarget'''. MB has a very optimistic view of how people type. That's certainly not how ''I'' type, at least. I smash the keys that I think will take me to the page I'm looking for, and if they fail to, I squint at the screen and try to figure out what went wrong. There's no "check work" step before I hit enter. There's a lot of typos I don't think it's worth our trouble to support, but someone hitting {{key|e}} thrice instead of twice is a quite common one, and makes this a plausible redirect. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 05:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Retarget'''. MB has a very optimistic view of how people type. That's certainly not how ''I'' type, at least. I smash the keys that I think will take me to the page I'm looking for, and if they fail to, I squint at the screen and try to figure out what went wrong. There's no "check work" step before I hit enter. There's a lot of typos I don't think it's worth our trouble to support, but someone hitting {{key|e}} thrice instead of twice is a quite common one, and makes this a plausible redirect. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 05:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I can't help but think this a bit British-centric. I don't have the stats to show it, and it really isn't important enough to take the time to find them, but it seems to me that outside of Britain, the most common use of the non typo this is a redirect to (or Proposed to be changed to) is the rules of Boxing, not a particular school or marquee. [[Special:Contributions/174.212.211.248|174.212.211.248]] ([[User talk:174.212.211.248|talk]]) 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


====Consanguinity (in Canon Law)====
====Consanguinity (in Canon Law)====

Revision as of 19:32, 22 March 2022

March 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2022.

Chithravadham

Was an article about impalement as an execution method in medieval Kerala, but is no longer mentioned at target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens grips

I made this redirect by accident during a page move. As the CSD was not formally met, I want to open up a discussion to delete this redirect. I doubt my typo is actually helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Kunwari

I wish to nominate Maan Kunwari for deletion and Princess of Amber for either deletion or conversion to Disambiguation page. Mariam-uz-Zamani was not refer to as Maan Kunwari but as Heer Kunwari or so. And Mariam-uz-Zamani wasn't the only princess of Amber (former state of Jaipur), at least one other princess of Amber has an Wikipedia page. It does not seem right to associate "princess of Amber" with one lady but only two Princess of Amber has seem to have Wikipedia articles. I request to turn this redirect to a disambiguation page or delete it.
Manavati (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about turning Princess of Amber (which I created as a redirect) into a disambig page if there is more than one existing WP page. Dsp13 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pastors

No articles seem to link to it. Indeed, almost nothing links to its target. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molinos en ritmo

No such term on the target, unable to find more suitable target. Presently no assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neodop. If you wish to add that information to the album article I am happy to withdraw the nomination, but to redirect a reader to a page where there is no relevant information, is not assistance to navigation, but a blind alley. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military intervention

A military intervention is not necessarily an invasion Gaetr (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junk food vegan

"Junk food" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edenic diet

This term is not identified at either of the redirects' targets, leaving what these redirects are supposed to represent to be unknown. (However, Edenic diet is a {{R with history}}, meaning we may have had content about the redirects' subject in the past, but it doesn't look like we do now.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZieZie

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 moot (in the American sense). Page is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate easier search. WP:RDELETE #2 may apply: might cause confusion since ZieZie is not Aitch. They have cooperated once, but so did Banx & Ranx, Digital Farm Animals and more. WP:RDELETE #10 may apply: could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Apologies for my revert on the redirect, I thought for a second I was still on my talk page. That being said, I'm curious. How did you come across this redirect? Surely if you've stumbled across this you would have come across plenty of the same sort of redirects (featured artists being redirected to the articles of artists with whom they've collaborated once) created by the users Lk95 and AshMusique? I hardly do this sort of thing anymore and yet those two users are still doing it every week. Just saying... Ss112 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this redirect while adding the BPI certification for "Chop My Money" by iLL BLU featuring Krept & Konan, Loski & ZieZie. Yes, I stumble across such redirects quite often lately and I nominate them for deletion whenever I find them, I think they are a bad idea. --Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so we can approve Draft:ZieZie. In fact, instead of filing this, that's what I would have done myself—moved it over the top of my redirect. Maybe the draft could do with a little bit in the currently empty "Career" section, but aside from that there's notability. Ss112 02:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't notice there was draft. I have no objection to that, seems notable enough to me. --Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with this redirect, it has both an RFD tag and a CSD tag on it and it's confusing to admins who review pages tagged for speedy deletion. If you want another page moved to this one, maybe this discussion should be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 21 March 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.

Vegan athletics

The target article mentions in passing athletes who are vegans, but nothing specific in regards to the subject mentioned by the title of the redirect. In other words, readers searching this term hoping to find a subject about this will not find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Goes Green

Not mentioned at Hollywood, Los Angeles (which was just moved from Hollywood, which is now a disambiguation page) Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searching finds the term is used in journalism about the industry making films about "green" subjects or the industry itself adopting "green" practices. I don't see any suitable target. Go green redirects to Environmentalism, but there is nothing in that article specific to the film industry, much less Hollywood.MB 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealul Radului

By my count, we are down to 23 unhelpful redirects to Măeriște. I think this is a small enough group to bundle them together as one "miscellaneous" nomination. I have verified that there is no mention of any of these terms (or variants) at the target page. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest NFL Player

According to the target article, Tyreek Hill set a speed record for the 2016 season, but I don't see any indication that he is considered the fastest in the timeless way suggested by this search term. I also don't see any speed records at List of National Football League records (individual), leading me to think that deletion is the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Price Whelan

No coverage of Audrey Price Whelan in redirected biography, only an un-supported statement that she is the spouse of Michael Whelan. No evidence of importance, notability or even being factual.

Failed WP:CSD#R3. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check his website and literally his Wikipedia says it on their. 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and his wife and him run his website 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-orange vegetables

There doesn't seem to be any such list or identification of the subject of the redirect in the target article; in fact, the word "yellow" appears nowhere in the target article. For this reason, readers attempting to locate a topic by this name when searching the term will seemingly be left with finding nothing about the topic of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a shortcoming of the article rather than the redirect. A quick scan of Google and Google Books hits for "Yellow-orange vegetables" indicates that this is a grouping well-reported on in the real world. I would be inclined to keep the redirect and add at least a line to the article noting that some sources distinguish "Green vegetables" from "Yellow-orange vegetables" for purposes of dietary recommendations and the like. BD2412 T 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, e.g.: Thomas E. Moon and Marc S. Micozzi, eds., Nutrition and Cancer Prevention (Marcel Dekker Inc., 1988), p. 228: "Foods chosen for nutrient composition analysis, based upon the results of epidemiologic studies, are divided into two broad categories: green, leafy vegetables (e.g., broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, spinach), and yellow-orange vegetables (e.g., carrots, pumpkin, red palm oil, squashes, sweet potato)". BD2412 T 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add sourced description at target if possible based on BD2412's analysis, otherwise delete due to lack of mention to defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salad vegetable

The target article does not mention the word "salad" anywhere, leaving the terms unidentified in the target article. In addition, it would probably not be appropriate to retarget these redirects to Salad since the article doesn't seem to be able to identify what a "salad vegetable" is either. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabji

Delete per WP:FORRED. This redirect seems to be in the Bengali language, which the target article's subject does not have affinity. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:FORRED: non-English title is in common use. I have takeaway menus for two separate UK restaurants. My options include (1) Shabji Bhajee £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables) & Shabji Sag £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables cooked with spinach).(2) Shabji Paneer £3.50 (no translation). Hazardous to Health (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And what type of cuisine do these restaurants represent? Seems like a cuisine type that uses a foreign language. The menu items you listed may be okay to have on this Wikipedia per WP:FORRED due to not having a proper English translation and/or being more commonly known in English by their foreign-language term/phrases, but the individual words themselves should be deleted per WP:FORRED since the subject of the word itself does not have affinity to the language which it is in. (In other words, "delete per WP:FORRED" should be valid for the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) "Indian & Bangladeshi" (2) "Indian Cuisine" [[WP:FORRED] in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. I do not live in a city and yet both these restaurants are within walking distance of me. I believe you are from North America, so I suspect, from your persective, the inclusion has little use. But in the UK Indian and Anglo-Indian cuisine is so pervasive that the last link is actually a sub-section of "English cuisine"! Hazardous to Health (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment didn't address my point in the least, and the point you are mentioning again is menu items (phrases which include the word) rather than the individual word itself. Please reread my comment if necessary and, if needed, address what I was stating rather than, I'm assuming unintentionally, WP:BLUDGEON-ing your stance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit vegetable

Confusing WP:XY situation: Fruit or Vegetable? (Yeah, it's a common question, but as a redirect, the WP:XY exists regardless where it targets.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to delete, but List of vegetables#Fruits is a possible target (however that list also has sections for "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables", which are both fruits; perhaps the list could be modified so "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables" are subsections of "Fruit"). Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/refine - I don't think this is an unreasonable search term given the confusion so many seem to have about believing these terms to be mutually exclusive. Plantdrew's target is acceptable, but I prefer Vegetable#Terminology where the confusion is well explained. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beffroi

Unnecessary WP:RLOTE from French; either delete or possibly redirect to Belfries of Belgium and France (the only term on the dab page relevant to the Francosphere), though the latter does not list the French name of the site at all in prose. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth tank

Delete - not mentioned in main article and fictional cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modding (Command & Conquer)

Disambiguation makes no sense, not a believable redirect that people could be looking for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an {{R from move}} that was at this title for a few weeks in 2007 before being moved to Modding of Command & Conquer, which was then redirected to the main article per an AfD in 2009. I am not sure if there was ever any mention of modding at the target, but we should just leave these redirects per the consensus of the AfD. If someone felt strongly otherwise, I think both redirects should be considered together to reach a new consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: The other redirect contains the entire article history, although it was entirely WP:OR even at the time. This redirect both has no history to speak of nor makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3 weeks is long enough to collect external links, so we generally keep such redirects from moves. Usually there is no benefit in deletion of such redirects, and if there were content about modding at the target, this redirect would be just fine. The problem here is that in spite of the AfD outcome over a decade ago, there is currently no content at the target. But that's more a question for how to handle the other redirect with the page history. I think as long as that one stays, this one should just be left alone. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I disagree with Mdewman6's arguments. Veverve (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Modding is not unique to this game and anyone looking here for information on modding this game, whether we have any or not, would already know we have an article and to go straight there. This redirect would do nothing to help anyone actually searching for the information it implies because they wouldn't be using it in the first place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atarbekyan

It is not clear why these redirects target here, which gives rise to a confusing hatnote. "Atarbekyan" is mentioned at Sevan–Hrazdan Cascade and, for a different reason, at Artimet. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite two relists, this had participation from only one user. One final try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queeensbury

Implausible typo. Created as a result of a page move made back in 2006. Contains no significant page history, though if kept it should be retargeted to Queensbury, which is also a DAB page like its current target. CycloneYoris talk! 07:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible typo, I believe typing extra letters into the search bar would show results without the need for a redirect anyway (see Kiingsbury for example). Bonoahx (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reeetarget to Queensbury. Letter replication (typing three of something where two are required) is one of the easier typos to make. BD2412 T 21:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo. I think it is very unlikely that someone would type three and not notice and correct. As Bonoahx states, the search function would still get you there, even with four: Showing results for queensbury. No results found for Queeeensbury. MB 15:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Queensbury as plausible typo --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. MB has a very optimistic view of how people type. That's certainly not how I type, at least. I smash the keys that I think will take me to the page I'm looking for, and if they fail to, I squint at the screen and try to figure out what went wrong. There's no "check work" step before I hit enter. There's a lot of typos I don't think it's worth our trouble to support, but someone hitting e thrice instead of twice is a quite common one, and makes this a plausible redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't help but think this a bit British-centric. I don't have the stats to show it, and it really isn't important enough to take the time to find them, but it seems to me that outside of Britain, the most common use of the non typo this is a redirect to (or Proposed to be changed to) is the rules of Boxing, not a particular school or marquee. 174.212.211.248 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

I think it should be turned into a DAB with Consanguinity#Christianity and Affinity (Catholic canon law). However, the capitalisation of the redirect is clearly wrong (it should be "Consanguinity (canon law)", see Canon law). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LDS(automobile)

Bit of a weird case. This was a copy-paste of the creator's own article [4] [5]—not an attempt at a cut-and-paste move, just a copy. Redirected 12 hours later, and judging from pageviews is not relied upon by anyone. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Definitely an unusual case, but doesn't seem to serve any purpose. If you typed this in the search box (assuming you're using default settings) it would still bring up the right page. The only way it could really be used would be if you were manually typing in the URL and missed an underscore. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZS(company)

Implausible typo with negligible pageview. Unusually, for this sort, created de novo, not an r from move. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Burton(bowler)

Typo in disambiguator corrected 3 hours after article's creation. Negligible pageviews since. Suggest deletion as with most malformatted disambiguators. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_20&oldid=1078676619"