Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.249.16 (talk) at 03:20, 17 July 2021 (→‎The Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 16

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

List of games featuring the Galaxian flagship

This was originally created as a list in 2006, and subsequently merged with the main Galaxian article. The list was deleted from the article by Dgpop in October 2018, without formal discussion but without objection. The list was unsourced, and would probably fail WP:OR if it were to be recreated. As the redirect title no longer refers to a list, and is an unlikely search term to anyone looking only for the Galaxian article, I would recommend that the redirect be Deleted. Tevildo (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WBFS

Propose deletion as the target article no longer mentions "WBFS" or anything else related to Wii file systems. Original article would fail WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR and thus is probably not worth keeping in history. – voidxor 23:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wii Backup filesystem as not discussed anywhere. Retarget WBFS to WBFS-TV as the only other usage of WBFS in English Wikipedia. WBFS is also an acronym for "wellbore friction simulator" but we have no content about that. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FreeTalk 45

Not mentioned at the target, appears to be an unrelated social media site based on an internet search, if potentially appealing to the same target audience as OANN. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarité

Redirect to what might have been an upcoming project title, but it is not clear what happened to it, not mentioned anywhere in target article BOVINEBOY2008 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offcut

Too general a term to redirect to the very specific machining use - a search on the word within en.wiki finds it used for fabric, meat, etc. Perhaps needs a Wiktionary link? (I created this redirect by moving the article away from this term). PamD 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig I agree with the nominator that this is far too general a term to redirect to such a specific use. In addition to the current target there is the The Off Cut Festival, the Offcutts (band) and possibly others. A Wiktionary link and see-also to Cutoff (disambiguation) would also fit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current target is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopaedic article. --John B123 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and leave for search results. In machining, kerf loss is the material lost by the action of the tool (e.g. material expelled by a drill or actually removed by a saw) while an offcut is potentially useful material that remains after a workpiece is cut to size (e.g. the remaining portion of an 8ft board cut down to 6ft, which is slightly less than 2ft because of kerf loss - the width of the saw blade is not zero). They are related but not the same thing. Retargeting to cutoff wouldn't be appropriate: I don't see any titles on that dab page where "offcut" is a synonym (nobody wears "offcut shorts"; you don't say "that guy offcut me!" when someone swerves in front of you; voltage and temperature regulating devices aren't called "offcuts" and don't "off-cut" when they trigger). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't suggesting to retarget this to "cutoff" but to link to that dab in a see-also section from this one (mistaking the two is a plausible error for a non-native speaker, which isn't enough to retarget or combine the dabs but see-also links are nearly free so the link is justifiable). Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I misread. Would it be appropriate to create a dab for a dictionary definition with other uses listed? See draft in a minute. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep draft. What the squirrel has created is actually a stub article, which is better. I think I'd move the "It may also refer to" entries to a hatnote, et voila. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's really just a dab that's a bit more descriptive than usual. I'm not sure this is really a notable topic for a standalone article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a dab page it's too far beyond MOSDAB and would be torn to shreds. I quite like the stub, but it's unsourced and doesn't yet mention textiles or meat. Agree that the other uses would be better as hatnotes. Not sure this can work. PamD 05:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't considered butchering and textiles, and those don't quite fit the definition I drafted. I see some evidence that offcuts in various industries may be GNG-notable; perhaps we can keep this draft for now (for the purposes of this discussion) and work on developing it into a set index article? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and keep the draft provided by the squirrel. CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ivanvector seems to have solved the core issue, but further discussion could help solve the draft's identity crisis: stub or disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta <Sport> Team

There is more than one team that each of these could refer to. Retarget Football and Basketball to Sports in Atlanta, which lists such teams. However, Atlanta Baseball Team is used as a euphemism for the MLB team that plays there, by people like me who prefer not to say its name, and also by several news outlets, extending the convention of the Washington Football Team and Cleveland Baseball Team. Given that the only other baseball team listed at Sports in Atlanta is the Gwinnett Stripers, an affiliate of the other team, and also keeping in mind WP:DIFFCAPS, on balance I'd say keep Baseball, optionally with hatnote to Sports in Atlanta. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is enough ambiguity in the redirect terms that the target could possibly not be the intended target for a reader. 05:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Retarget all. Euphemisms seem to be a very niche use and will not be impacted by retargetting to the general page without misleading those who don't know about whatever the local issue is (and most people using redirects like this are going to be unfamiliar with local sports politics). Retargetting is preferable to deletion for exactly the same reason disambiguation pages exist - they better serve the reader than search results. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Sports in Atlanta (unless, of course, Atlanta Braves changes its name). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Basketball to Sports in Atlanta. The others don't really have a strong case for generalizing since there are no notable colleges that are called Atlanta. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming that everyone using this search term knows that and that colleges with Atlanta in the name are the only possible teams these could refer to. Both assumptions are wrong - I didn't know that about colleges and I'd want to see current and former teams that played these sports that were based in and/or represented Atlanta even if they don't have Atlanta in the name. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Sports in Atlanta to be consistent with the analogous redirects to Sports in Baltimore, per the consensus from the analogous RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Baseball - there's been a trend for several years of media (and especially sports commentators) referring to major league sports teams as "<city> <sport> team" rather than their potentially offensive actual names (c.f. Cleveland Baseball Team, Washington Football Team, Edmonton Football Team). The Braves are one such team. Retarget the others for the reasons already stated. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I often find multiple relists unproductive unless new questions have emerged since the previous one. Here, I find consensus to retarget two of these redirects, but no consensus yet on the third. Effectively, I am only relisting that one, but I think it will be neater to relist first and then close the other two. Consider this a closing statement for those Atlanta Football Team and Atlanta Basketball Team.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domina Vacanze

De Nardi was not the only cycling team to be sponsored by this non-notable hotel group. Unclear primary target. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Svalbard

Not mentioned at target. Svalbard reads "Svalbard does not currently use a distinct flag" in an image caption, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Svalbard, which mentions the lack of flag (as you note) and also shows a past proposed flag. On the other hand, that caption is unsourced. Not sure what my !vote would be if the caption were to be removed—I could see a case for still targeting to Svalbard even without mention, given that the lack of mention is itself a partial answer. But we can cross that bridge if we come to it, and, either way, the current target is unhelpful. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget either to Svalbard or to Svalbard and Jan Mayen#Application which has prose stating "Neither Svalbard nor Jan Mayen have their own flag or coat of arms, and the flag of Norway is used for both of them, both alone and as a group." that is sourced to the CIA World Fact Book. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone were to formulate a short section on the use of the Norwegian flag on Svalbard and Jan Mayen in the Flag of Norway article, then I would vote to keep this redirect. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel like the implication with this redirect is clear and would convey that the flag of Svalbard is just the Norwegian flag to anyone searching or linking this. Perhaps it would be more clear, however, if the Flag of Norway article referenced this explicitly. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Retarget to Svalbard where Svalbard not using a flag is mentioned, rather than the current target, where it is not. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Svalbard and Jan Mayen#Application per Thryduulf, where the lack of a flag is explicitly mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hothouse earth

Perhaps nowadays should point to Tipping points in the climate system as seems to be mentioned in that article? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawasib

People want to understand what this term means, not be redirected onto a page relating to the topic. Deleting it will allow users to see the wiktionary link on the side of the page, and find out the definition for the word. ParthikS8 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of male genital mutilation

I believe this redirect should be retargeted to Prevalence of circumcision, by far the most common form, with a hatnote. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What needs to be established is whether circumcision is considered genital mutilation. As per Circumcision it is not, and although circumcision is a sub-section in Genital modification and mutilation, I believe it is because of the "modification" part, and not "mutilation". Delete if there is no other suitable target, since current target is not about prevalence. Jay (Talk) 08:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Circumcision#Elective: The Danish College of General Practitioners states that circumcision should "only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation."[29] ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a medical POV from the article. The religious and cultural POV will be different. What is the general POV about circumcision regarding mutilation? Jay (Talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear that some people regard male circumcision as a subset of male genital mutilation (at least in some circumstances) and others do not. Unlike with females where there is a clear concensus that circumcision is a subset of genital mutilation to the extent that Female circumcision is a redirect to Female genital mutilation, there exists no such consensus for males. Accordingly I feel it would be a violation of NPOV to redirect the larger term to a subset here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil

Probable fake title for the sequel based on a supposed "leak". Read here. Propose deletion. enjoyer -- talk 02:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the screenshot from the deleted tweet mentioned in the ScreenRant article just looks like a speculation/assertion from 4chan. If true, however, it's WP:TOOEARLY. SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the “leak” that mentioned this title claimed that there was going a trailer for the game in a Nintendo Direct last October which didn’t occur and also contained significant misinformation such Crash Bandicoot being the seventh DLC fighter for Smash Ultimate when in fact it was Sephiroth who was only announced in December. This is clearly fake.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad (software)

Clear primary topic of "Notepad", referring to software, is Microsoft Notepad. Propose retargeting. Notepad+ and Notepad++ are already, well, named differently. Text editors are only referred to as "notepad" because of Microsoft Notepad, following that, Microsoft Notepad is clearly primary. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment some old discussion on whether text editors are called "notepad" or not: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Notepad software. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a google search for "Notepad" software for me shows no primary topic between Notepad++ and Microsoft Notepad with other programs such as Finale notepad, XML notepad and Programmer's Notepad in there too. Several of the links referring to the first two are offering alternatives to the named program, at least one of them talks of "alternative notepad software". Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom with a {{redirect}} hatnote to the disambiguation page. I think the Microsoft product is the primary topic for the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence that there is a primary topic? All my searches have indicated the exact opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:PDAB, the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foos that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator. Use as a generic term for a text editor is enough to fail this higher bar. Certes (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. MS Notepad is the primary topic for Notepad software, by a very large margin. Even the other contenders, such as Notepad+, are named after MS Notepad (it's called Notepad+ because it has more features than Notepad). Google searches are not a reliable indicator of primary topic or anything else, among other reasons, because Google search results are customized. See related in WP:HITS and WP:GHITS. But go search Google books or Google scholar for notepad software and there are far more results about the original MS software than any of its successors. Arguing there is no primary topic between Notepad, Notepad+, and Notepad++ is like arguing there is no primary topic between Star Wars, Star Wars 2, and Star Wars 3. Levivich 15:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom and the two retarget votes above, for the reasons mentioned. Hatnote to the DAB page. Jay (Talk) 06:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_16&oldid=1033991459"