Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.93.195.118 (talk) at 23:11, 3 March 2022 (→Guido Fawkes (blogger)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2022.

Do Men gossip more than Women

Re-direct is nonsense and possibly sexist. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a question, not a topic.Wiki-psyc (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is not nonsense (it's very clear what someone using it is looking for) and whether it is sexist or not is irrelevant (per WP:RNEUTRAL), but someone looking for information on this topic will not find anything relevant at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia that I've found. The title of a couple of references used in articles that are extremely tangentially related to this term suggest that there is probably scope for a section discussing gender differences in gossiping behaviour and/or stereotypes and this title would not be an inappropriate redirect to that, but as it stands there is no suitable target that exists. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Thryduulf. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Minute Closer to Death

No assistance to navigation. Probably a rumoured title before release. Failed to find any reference to this title at target, nor at any other page. If there is a better target I have missed, I would remain in favour of retargetting. Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Land

Besides the fact that this redirect uses proper case when its current target is not a proper-cased subject, this redirect does not seem to be an alternative name for the target, leaving the connection to possibly seem WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super swamper

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick google seems to find a bunch of tires? That isn't notable, and seemingly nothing at target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schwingmoor & Swingmoor

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 withdrawn/resolved per Richard New Forest's addition to the target article to explain/mention the redirects. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target unclear. (Due to their similar spelling, I am assuming that whatever subject these redirects refer is the same.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quaking bog para ought to mention these terms, which mean the same thing. I've added them in. Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:40, 2 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.

Guido Fawkes (blogger)

Technically, the blogger is Paul Staines, who uses the penname "Guido Fawkes" both for his blog (Guido Fawkes) and himself. Not sure how best to deal with this; probably best just to delete this as a redirect. AFreshStart (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

שרעק

Delete because Hebrew versions have no relevance to targets, per WP:RLOTE. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Functional dissonance

Not mentioned at target (the word "functional" does not even appear there at all). 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:Events at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - valid redirect, and to preserve page history. Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On one hand, there shouldn't be an article about this, per WP:NOTDATABASE (and due to the fact that no other content seems to exist about this). On the other, even if properly targeted, this is an unlikely search term (giving this is a rather unlikely topic as well), and there is no content about this (other than a line in the sports-by-sports medal table) at the target article (which is itself not much better than a database entry). Removing the redirect would not remove any functionality or valuable content (previous versions of this redirect are entirely unsourced); though at the same time keeping it is a redirect to discourage article creation is also a valid concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Nothing in the completely unsourced history that would help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equimolar

This is not mentioned at target; is a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:equimolar a better alternative? 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 13:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn bowls at the Summer Paralympics

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 Procedural keep. Not a redirect anymore; hence this discussion is moot (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:ParalympicSports. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Edit: Withdrawn, Thanks to fast page creation by SFB. CLalgo (talk) 08:11, 3 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.

Nasty Party

Appears to have originally been an article retargeted to Conservatism in the United Kingdom but changed to the current target without discussion. Theresa May popularised the phrase, but it isn't really in relation to her. Suggest Restore per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty Party or retarget to somewhere more appropriate as WP:RNEUTRAL. Bonoahx (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete entirely. The original redirect doesn't mention the phrase "Nasty Party" at all (and such a redirect seems borderline PoV/disruptive). The Theresa May reference at least mentions the phrase, but I don't see it being notable enough for this redirect ot exist. — Czello 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, or restore: It certainly is a known and probably notable expression enough and probably ought to be included in Conservatism in the United Kingdom—it is used routinely in discussions around British politics to describe the shifts in positioning of the UK's political parties (i.e. following shifts in public attitudes and Howard's failure in the 2005 General Election, the Conservative Party moving away from social conservatism and towards the social liberalism of the David Cameron/George Osborne years). Examples of it being used: Guardian 2002, Independent 2021, BBC 2002, BBC 2008, BBC 2021, BBC 2021 again LabourList 2016. The neutrality argument here seems weak—the phrase is associated with Theresa May. The redirect does not say to the reader "Theresa May is a nasty party" nor "Theresa May is a member of a nasty party". If you read it like that, the neutrality argument would also apply if to any other redirect target (e.g. the Conservative Party or 'Conservatism in the UK'). Redirecting any political slogan or expression could have an obtuse interpretation, but we should assume a sensible reader who can grasp a modicum of nuance. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a little bit of content at Compassionate conservatism#United Kingdom. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the white rabbit

The phrase "follow the white rabbit" is used a lot in conspiracy-theory discourse (e.g. QAnon/Pizzagate), and it is not clear this would be the primary topic for someone searching for the uncapitalised version of this phrase. To avoid confusion, IMO, this should either be made into a disambig page, or deleted. AFreshStart (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amstelodami

Delete. Correct Latin name for Amsterdam is Amstelodamum. Amstelodami is an adjective. Of course, Amstelodami is the Genitive and Locative of Amstelodamum. Thesmp (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion; this seems to be just the genitive of the name. No opinion if it should be kept, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We should always delete redirects that aren't in nominative case (for inflectional languages) or aren't the stem (for agglutinative languages), but explaining why is a bit tricky since English is neither. Translating Amstelodami as Amsterdam is flat-out wrong, because it's the genitive and locative form. The correct translation for genitive is Amsterdam's, and for locative is in Amsterdam. If someone created the redirects Amsterdam's and in Amsterdam and redirected it to Amsterdam, there is little doubt in my mind that both redirects would be deleted. The Latin equivalents should be deleted too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a point that people unfamiliar with the language are not unlikely to enter an inflected form they saw somewhere, and as such redirects like this would serve a similar purpose as the usual redirects from other languages. Leaning delete though. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 23:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oiyarbepsy Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set out

WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HoWard Taft

Delete these implausible ones for the same reasons as the nom. below; created by the same blocked user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HoWard TaFt

While I'm usually supportive of redirects with non-standard capitalization, this one takes it a little too far into implausability, as there's nothing logical or systematic about this set of capitalization errors at all. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed there is no reason to beleieve someone would think his name is spelled HoWard. Remove this redirect.Nerguy (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Ngọc Tho

I know redirects are CHEAP however; this redirect is incredibly improbably as it is from a title without diacritics but includes ọ, which is a letter with a diacritic making it a redirect from partial diacritics to a page with full diacritics. The diacriticless Nguyen Ngoc Tho is a redirect that works perfectly well. I recommend delete. TartarTorte 20:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keepish. WP:CHEAP, as nom said, and there are at least a few pageviews per year. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connection Tour 07

Nowhere mentioned in article, and creator of redirect is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [talk] 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🔴

Seems a little weird to me that we're assuming that people who specifically write in 🔴 want to go "Circle"—seems much more likely that if they're gonna take the time to copy and paste the unicode emoji, they'd want to be navigated to The Color Red. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you cannot see this emoji, it is a large red circle the same size as other emojis. On some platforms, it has a glossy specularity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice. This character is U+1F534 "LARGE RED CIRCLE", the similar characters 🟠 🟡 🟢 🟣 🟤 🔵 🔶 🔷 🔸 🔹 🔺 🔻 🟥 🟦 🟧 🟨 🟩 🟪 🟫 all redirect to Circle, Rhombus, Triangle or Square as appropriate to their shape and this one should not be singled out from the set. All individual unicode code points that have a defined meaning are plausible search terms and should lead to somewhere. In this case I don't see any reason why that somewhere should not be the article about the shape, but if others prefer the colour or some other target then the set should be discussed as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - no opinion on Circle vs e.g. Red, but changing it to the color would require a discussion involving all of the other ones pointed out above. Although the song in question apparently has been illustrated as a red dot on some versions of the CD, it doesn't look like there's an official name, and the album predates emoji's inclusion in Unicode anyway (so the dot isn't specifically the emoji.) eviolite (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Circle. feminist (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Red Circle, and additionally, take the other ones pointed out by @Thryduulf and retarget them to Orange Circle, Yellow Circle, Blue Square, Orange Rhombus, etc etc, if such articles exist. If such articles don't exist (if there is actually an Orange Rhombus article I will genuinely be surprised), keep the current redirects. casualdejekyll 01:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget + Retarget list of thryduulf per casualdejekyll Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Department of public services

I'm pretty sure that there are many other, more prominent departments along the lines of public services other than this random "now-defunct Department of Public Services" —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 07:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for consensus given that there's clear dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page thryduulf linked is now an SIA. Pinging @Lenticel, Thryduulf, Eureka Lott, and Mrschimpf: who participated before it was relisted twice with no discussion to let you know that that was changed. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that page now matches what I want in a target for this redirect so my recommendation to retarget to Public Service Commission stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this an 'aye' in regards to the retargeting; that now makes much more sense. Vote! so changed. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Event List


Overcapitalized unused redirect; I moved the redirect to Future event list to make it usable in article text, which left this redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle with related redirect that has been proposed for deletion by Jay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AW

Should this redirect to Article Wizard, like WP:aw? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: I would suggest bundling the other redirect into this nomination, since the aim here seems to be to syncronise them. I would be tempted to retarget WP:aw, since it was fairly recently created and has no real incoming links, as opposed to WP:AW which has been around for 15 years and has a few dozen links. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_2&oldid=1075102433"