Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.92.245.188 (talk) at 03:43, 25 September 2021 (→‎Foreman Spike). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

September 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2021.

Gaelic language

Retarget to Gaelic#Languages. There are many Gaelic languages, аnd none of the meanings prevail. Somerby (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gaelic#Languages: There are too many potential targets for this to direct the searcher anywhere else. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the the redirects here will need to be considered as well. – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gaelic#Languages per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there was a brazilian IP editor vandalising a load of Gaelic related redirects last year by pointing them all at Scottish Gaelic. See for example [1], [2] etc. There's a load of redirects in this topic that probably need fixing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I got blocked by Drmies in the process for "Disruptive editing" but I think I've gotten all the vandalised redirects fixed, there were 50 something of them in all. That being said Retarget, but to Goidelic languages, rather than Gaelic#Languages. Apart from the various varieties of Gaelic languages that are covered in Goidelic languages The only pages in that section of the disambiguation page are Comparison of Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic and two lists of words derived from Gaelic Origin, none of which are ambiguous with the title Gaelic language. Since the only reasonable target in that section of the dab page is Goidelic languages or one of the individual languages in that group I think we should cut out the DAB page and just link directly to the page on the language family. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm OK with both targets whether Gaelic#Languages or Goidelic languages. But to point reader directly to Scottish Gaelic is definitely not correct. I want also to ping @Bastun: because that was probably he who added in the section Irish language#In English the statement sorry, it was O'Dea: [3] that many Irish people object to the use of the word Gaelic to describe the language, citing Alan Titley, who made an error saying that "Gaelic" refers only to the native language of Scotland. --Somerby (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political instability

Political instability may occur whether or not the state is failed. So delete this redirection to create a page on this topic. 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:D910:79AE:97FC:F310 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.B.O Clothing Line Ltd.

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 Billion Gang as discussed in pulse.ng [4] Legit.ng [5] globaitimesng.com [6] The Obama and Aloma ones need more mainstream news discussion. OBO clothing isn't clear and should be mentioned in Davido's article if it is a major brand. OBO can refer to his album. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 30 Billion Gang per the above. Princess of Ara 07:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grifball

Unneeded redirect; links to a now nonexistent section EthanGaming7640 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green fungus

Not mentioned at the target, GScholar results suggest that "green fungus" more commonly refers to visibly-green fungal growths, including but not limited to Aspergillus. As the term isn't discussed in depth anywhere on Wikipedia, deletion seems like the way to go for now. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objections to deletion of this redirect. There was some COVID19-related news in the Indian press where the term was used a couple of weeks ago, around mid-June, but I don't see anything to suggest that it ever became a sufficiently notable topic to warrant a redirect.
  • Delete The term is used generically to describe what appears to be a green-colored fungus-like thing growing on something. Lichen and green molds are sometimes incorrectly referred to as "green fungus". It's not a topic per se. I did find another technical exmple, Ellobiopsidae, referred to as "green fungus", but even there I think it's more of a descriptive term than an alternative common name.Coastside (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Office astrologer

Nowhere mentioned in target page, unlikely search term --TheImaCow (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above. While Nancy Reagan did consult an astrologer on several occasions, to my knowledge there never was, nor has there ever been an Oval Office astrologer. Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postcore

I have never heard or read someone use this term in clear reference to this genre. The term is not mentioned at the target article. It is unclear, and could also possibly be confused for or refer to a mix of post-metal and metalcore from the likes of bands like Spiritbox and Loathe. dannymusiceditor oops 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UKOGBAI

{{Db-redirtypo}} Blue Riband► 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This speedy deletion has been contested here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_24 . You are welcome to debate there. Angelgreat (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note neither this page (the RfD discussion, which was the page tagged for speedy deletion) nor the UKOGBAI redirect are eligable for speedy deletion under criterion R3 as neither are typos. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... (It can make things easier. UKOGBANI is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so UKOGBAI would be short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922.) --Angelgreat (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC) copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -A WP:CSD under WP:R3 applies to "..recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers". While the text string "UKOGBAI" is not a typo itself it is unlikely that somebody would type "WKOGBAI" to look for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland". Blue Riband► 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, UKOGBAI is not short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Delete really silly redirect. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that UKOGBAI is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NORTHERN Ireland. Please check before posting accusations. Angelgreat (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a simple acronym. There are two acronymns UKOGBANI and UKOGBAI pointing to two different articles. There is an existing article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and this acronymn redirect points there. Why have the one redirect and not the other? Coastside (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreman Spike

The character that the redirect goes to on the article Characters in the Mario franchise is no longer on the article, proving the redirect pointless. Delete the redirect or have it go to the correct place if the character now goes by a different name on the article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wrecking Crew (video game)#Gameplay {{R from fictional character}}Coastside (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the character was just recently confirmed for the upcoming Super Mario film. So I imagine the best option would just be to create an entry for the character on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is already a mess as is. There's really no list criteria however I'm not sure if Foreman Spike would fit there anyways, being featured in only one game (and now being in the new film that's in production). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: pinging ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was inclusion criteria, and it failed it, I could see how that would be an issue. But I'm not following how a lack of inclusion criteria is somehow a roadblock. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: I started a discussion on the talk page about adding one because a lot of the character's on there were basically only in one game. If we were to add it and that discussion suddenly gain traction then there would be an issue. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for deletion here if the discussion currently on the charter page results in a consensus to mention the character we should keep the redirect should stay where it is and if there’s a consensus not to mention him there we should instead retarget to to Wrecking Crew (video game)#Gameplay since the character is mentioned there and it relevant to the section in question.--65.92.245.188 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State of Takasago

State of Takasago=ja:高砂国 Konno Yumeto 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Taiwan. The disambiguation page for Takasago defines State of Takasago as the name Japan called Taiwan during the Edo period (1603 to 1867). Therefore it should link to the article on Taiwan. It's misleading to point to the current target because that suggests the name applied specifically when the Japanese ruled Taiwan Province in 1895. I suggest adding these redirect category templates: {{R from alternative language|ja|en}} <!--name used by Japanese during Edo period --> and {{R without mention}}Coastside (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Butcher

Paige Butcher has been in a relationship with Eddie Murphy since 2012, and they were engaged in 2018. However, she has been independently notable - she was on the cover of Maxim in 2003 and 2004, and had a part role in Big Momma's House 2 in 2006. The current target is only about her part in Murphy's life, and doesn't do justice to her modelling credits, and would suggest to Delete. Jay (Talk) 05:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand. By saying Paige Butcher should be in a similar position, are you suggesting to retarget to one of the lists? Jay (Talk) 06:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simult

I see no evidence anywhere that this is actually a word. The only reference I see on the internet are copies of the original posting at this page (see [[7]], which got transwiki'd elsewhere. If readers search for simult they will find the proper pages anyway, so this non-word redirect has no value but to confuse. Note that SIMULT is a key on a TI calculator for simultaneous equations. But that's different.) Coastside (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skalmantas of Sudovia

Delete. This originated from a bad series of moves/redirects that conflated two articles: Skomantas of Sudovia and Skalmantas (Gediminids). The two articles are unrelated. Conflating the two in a misspelled redirect just causes confusion. It even resulted in an unnecessary and spuriously entangled attempt at a disambiguation page to tease the two apart. Coastside (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_24&oldid=1046331292"