Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 18 July 2022 (→‎The Beautiful Truth: Relisted on 2022 July 18 (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

July 10

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2022.

The Beautiful Truth

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18#The Beautiful Truth

ArKiVe

[edit]

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 retarget to ARKive. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was redirected to arXiv in 2007 (see prior version), but there's no connection to it. And is an unlikely typo for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 10 July 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.

Dissociality

[edit]

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 retarget to Anti-social behaviour. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both should redirect to Anti-social behaviour. I originally created the Dissociality redirect for use at ICD-11. In the ICD-11, there are no separate personality disorder categories in the traditional sense. Instead, the ICD-11 uses two categories: Personality disorder (6D10) and Personality difficulty (QE50.7). Both are measured by five treats, with Dissociality (6D11.2) being one of them. Both redirects should not point to Antisocial personality disorder because the ICD-11 considers this category to be somewhat obsolete, even though many believe that category-based diagnosing should be retained. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:40, 10 July 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.

Template:Onvaccation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Template:Onvaccation

Placer Dam

[edit]

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 no consensus. ✗plicit 12:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misnomer which an editor recently unable to find sources to support, leading to a page move. Unless editors can find evidence attesting this as an alternative name, the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:38, 10 July 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.

Chinese p

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely abbreviation; New York City is also completely irrelevant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:54, 10 July 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.

Wikipedia:TI

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Wikipedia:TI

Financial dis

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely shortenings. There are also more financial districts and financial centres. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no primary for this strange redirect and it is better to leave this as a red link to allow the search results to show. Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speed and efficiency do indeed matter. Who has the time to type out the whole words “Lower Manhattan”? Common sense should reign here. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:07, 10 July 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.

Filipino co

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL, partly ambiguous shortenings, and in no way restrictive to New York. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No connection to NY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:55, 11 July 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.

LGBT culture in New

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"New" what? New York is not the only place starting with "New". 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:20, 10 July 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.

Filipinotowns in

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"in"/"from" what? New York City is certainly not the only place where these could be. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd also support blocking that user from creating more useless redirects. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Nothing wrong in shortcuts. Why would you block that in this world of speed and efficiency? Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot, can you explain how on earth these unambiguously refer to New York City? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. These in large part redirect to the most likely search. Perhaps not 100% every time, but relatively close to it. And they are innocuous. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe they are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most likely search? How? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. @Castncoot: When you type for example "Indians in" into the search bar, you'll get results from other places, not just NYC. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then people can type in whole what they are specifically looking for, lol1VNIO. But that’s no reason to hold up the most common shortcut. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy, common sense, and should be kept. Common is common sense. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:55, 10 July 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.

Lgbt c

[edit]

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"c" can mean anything, and if it was referring to LGBT culture then it's unclear why it would be specifically the one in New York City. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that a "c" here unambiguously refers to culture (in New York City or not)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It’s the most searched LGBT culture page. These in large part redirect to the most likely search. Perhaps not 100% every time, but relatively close to it. And they are innocuous. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe they are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, redirects that clearly cause WP:R#ASTONISH situations for a large fraction of readers are definitely not innocuous. Would you prefer to turn LGBT culture into a redirect to LGBT culture in New York City and move the article to "LGBT culture (general)"? Not to mention that you did not even explain why "c" should mean "culture" in the first place (see Special:PrefixIndex/LGBT c for lots of other topics starting with c, for example). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt many would be astonished by any stretch of the imagination. The ‘LGBT c’ most often leads to a LGBT city culture article. As far as moving LGBT culture —> LGBT culture (general), yes, I would support this suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 15:14, 10 July 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.

Chinatown,

[edit]

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 delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL trailing comma resp. removed last character, and the main target would be Chinatown anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, someone entering "Chinatown," is looking for a specific Chinatown (not just the article on Chinatown). However, since we can't know which one they are trying to find, this redirect in the current state is just misleading, but would provide no benefit whatsoever if retargeted to the Chinatown article either. Further, entering "Chinat" in a search engine just gives a lot of unrelated companies/brands/etc., such as "ChinaT" or "ChiNat". 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, common sense needs to reign. What’s common is common, not esoteric. Speed and efficiency do matter and I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy and should be kept. Castncoot (talk) 15:04, 10 July 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.

Koreatown,

[edit]

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 delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WP:UNNATURAL trailing comma, and the main target would be Koreatown anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Why would you not keep that in this world of speed and efficiency? Castncoot (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, someone entering "Koreatown," is looking for a specific Koreatown (not just the article on Koreatown). However, since we can't know which one they are trying to find, this redirect in the current state is just misleading, but would provide no benefit whatsoever if retargeted to the Koreatown article either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your statement that it provides no benefit whatsoever is one which I respectfully disagree with. Castncoot (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do I understand you correctly that it should be retargeted to Koreatown? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:57, 10 July 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.

Cell tropism

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Cell tropism

Shi Hao

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Shi Hao

Retards FC

[edit]

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 delete. As the target article has been redirected at AfD, and the primary redirect has been deleted without opposition at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9 § Retard United, the keep argument is no longer relevant. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources that refer to "Retard United" of the Ascension Island Football League as "Retards FC", so this seems to be an implausible search term. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I'll retract my contribution in favour of the redirect's fate being decided at the target's AfD. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the new nomination WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Retard United. Jay (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 10 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_10&oldid=1098893606"