Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uanfala (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 28 April 2023 (→Norph: hmmm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2023.

Monte carlo Simulation

Highly unlikely capitalization. The correctly capitalized redirects, Monte Carlo simulation and Monte Carlo simulations, exist and should cover all use cases. I suggest delete. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Singh

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orthodox churches

The target is not a list, but a DAB of Christian denominations. For example, the DAB does not contain List of Eastern Orthodox churches in Toronto as it is a list of buildings, not of denominations. There is no good retarget.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, for navigational purposes. If people are expecting to find a list of orthodox churches, and we serve them the disambiguation page that lists the various sorts of Orthodox churches, we're serving our reader well with this reasonable search term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not a list article and is not intended to be used as one; these redirects are misleadling to readers and editors, regarding what a disambiguation is for.
It's not clear whether a searcher wants a list of buildings, a list of autocephalous Churches (eg. Organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church), or a list of denominations. Having them point to different destinations based on case could cause some confusion, and wouldn't resolve all the ambiguity since the autocephalous Churches and denominations often share the use of the capitalised "Church". Additionally, these list redirects are ambiguous because "Orthodox" is itself ambiguous. For example, is someone searching this looking for Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox C/churches?
The current target would be useless for anyone looking for buildings. As noted by the nominator, the target doesn't link readers to any list articles that might be relevant. (Including, in addition to the Toronto list, List of tallest Eastern Orthodox church buildings, List of Russian Orthodox churches, List of largest Eastern Orthodox church buildings, and perhaps others.) These could be listed under "see also", but that section already has more entries than are listed for disambiguation; better not to add clutter.
All these problems are most easily solved by not having the redirects. The titles should remain vacant to allow uninhibited searching, unless someone wants to volunteer to make an actual list article or at least a list of lists linking the list articles mentioned here. – Scyrme (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Jeopardy! contestants

Per WP:RDELETE#D8. These sections were removed from List of Jeopardy! contestants a while back due to them being deemed not notable, see this discussion. As a result, they are no longer discussed in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late retarget suggestion…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of resident evil 4

Should have been grouped with Weapons of Resident Evil 4 when it was nominated and deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#Weapons of Resident Evil 4. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Razvedupr

Looks like this could refer to GRU (Soviet Union) or GRU (Russian Federation) ... but it's unclear in what context. Seems the word is mentioned in both articles, but it's not clear if the word is synonymous with either subject, or if it's some sort of subtopic. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the target article has a disambiguating hatnote pointing to the other relevant article where it is mentioned, there is no need for any change here. However, if the term is really important we could add a {{Redir}} hatnote specifically for the "Razvedupr" term as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the ambiguous problem at all. This would not change any aspect of the existing problem at all. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GRU (Soviet Union). Razvedupr is short for “intelligence directorate.” I see it was used for a predecessor: Soviet Red Army intelligence 1921–41,[1] which doesn’t have a separate article and is covered in the early history of that one. —Michael Z. 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye

Unclear if readers looking up these terms are intending to locate GRU (Soviet Union) or GRU (Russian Federation). Looks like the terms could refer to either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a disambiguating hatnote at GRU (Russian Federation) pointing to GRU (Soviet Union), our usual method to disambiguate two identially named topics for as long as they don't warrant the introduction of a dedicated disambiguation page. So, from the perspective of redirects, everything is perfect. No need to change anything. (It might be a different topic to discuss if the two topics should be discussed in one article, but that should be left to the topic experts working on these articles, not us at RfD.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not addressing the ambiguous problem at all. In addition, several of the incoming links to these redirects refer to the other target, so the current situation definitely doesn't help. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, for as long as a disambigution page isn't warranted our usual method to deal with such ambiguaties is to disambiguate them via hatnotes. This applies to the article topic itself as well as to incoming redirects.
If you think the issue is strong enough to warrant a disambiguation page, one of the redirects could be changed into a disambiguation page and the other redirects be pointed there. This would improve searches and navigation.
Additionally, the problem of pointing to the wrong article could be solved by creating pairs of redirects with parenthetical disambiguators " (Russian Federation)" and " (Soviet Union)", so that the desired target could be pointed to directly without piping. This would improve linking and reverse lookup possibilities.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I sort of alluded below, I'm teetering on believing that a disambiguation page may be necessary since it really is not clear which topic a reader on the English Wikipedia is attempting to locate when searching these terms. However, that would then result in some other issues, the primary one being which of these redirects represent the title which the disambiguation page should be at, since it is not all clear which one of these spellings is the most common in English texts. To your latter point, I really do not think that targeting one over the other is really helpful since ... ever since these articles were renamed as they were (these articles may have split from one article in the past, but I'm not finding anything of the such at the moment), apparently the nominated phrase in all its renditions could refer to either target with no clear preference for one over the other in regards to readers of the English Wikipedia. So ... either way, unless a primary topic is determined for these phrases, the best route probably is to disambiguate in one form or another. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would be one of the possibilities (I don't know which of the spelling variants would be the preferred one for the disambiguation page title).
Yet another alternative would be to redirect all these redirects to the GRU (Soviet Union) article given that the GRU (Russian Federation) article states that what is "still commonly known by its previous abbreviation GRU" is now named "Glavnoje upravlenije General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhonnykh sil Rossiyskoy Federatsii". If this is true (I don't know) "Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye" (and variants) seem to refer only to GRU (Soviet Union), strictly speaking, indicating a primary topic.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution would be to link to Gru (disambiguation) § Soviet Union and Russia as an {{r to initialism}} and {{r to section}}. Is that acceptable, given that these aren't really simple variations of "gru"?
An alternative target would be Main Intelligence Directorate as an {{r from language}} and {{r from romanization}}. – Scyrme (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of having any situation where an ambiguous term targets a disambiguation page where it's not a title/spelling match to the target page's title since the redirect doesn't represent every subject on the page, but it may have to be done here. A related alternative, and possibly my preferred option, would be to turn one of these into a disambiguation page, so maybe that's the play here? Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn (rational trigonometry)

No longer explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and readd the relevant contents to the target article. While the article has improved in regard to the discussion of the book and history, it has detoriated in regard to the discussion of the actual topic. The goal of our project is to collect and present the knowledge of the world, past and present, and we are not doing our readers a service by suppressing some contents just because some mathematicians don't like it, for as long as it is mathematically correct (which it is) and neutrally worded (which I think it was as well, omitting the hyperboles present in Wildberger's book). The math that was once part of the article should be restored. The alternative would be to discuss turns and coturns in terms of rational trigonometry in the turns article instead, but I find it better to describe it in the article on rational trigonometry because it requires this context to be understood. However, not mentioning it at all would be suppressing an interesting view on the topic from an angle which might help some readers to better understand it or even get new insights. The purpose why we build this encyclopedia. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras' theorem proof (rational trigonometry)

No longer described at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, Pythagoras' theorem described in terms of rational analogues is still mentioned in the "Organization and Topics" chapter. The formula should be readded as an example of a possible application of rational trigonometry, though. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitation of a Ukrainian prisoner of war

There are two other known instances of Ukrainian POWs being beheaded by the Russian invaders. One is known from a video released in April 2023, just like this one, showing two (instead of one) beheaded POWs. The other one can be read at Battle of Popasna#Aftermath. So this redirect is not appropriate as it can refer to several events. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Videolog

Requesting consensus on appropriate redirect target: Vlog (in the style of Video log)? Video logging? Leave as-is? Huell Howser's Videolog? A dab page? Some secret nth thing? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics)

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 speedy keep. Some rationale as below. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that this redirect is from an avoided double redirect, but, this redirect is useless with the following reason: Steve Rogers redirects to Captain America. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could please you elaborate on why this {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is useless? Randi Moth TalkContribs 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Rogers redirects to Captain America is why. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Doctor Dre

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26#Doctor Dre

Execution of Tymofii Shadura

The target article is about a Ukrainian prisoner of war who was executed by Russian soldiers. Initially (in the first three days), he was identified as Tymofii Shadura, but later the soldier was identified as Oleksandr Matsievskyi. Now that it's been clarified, redirects regarding Shadura should be eliminated, as this person is not related to the subject of the article. The so many existing redirects are only a product of recentism; had this happened prior to the creation of Wikipedia or had it gotten less attention, probably nobody would have ever created these redirects.

This nomination is also meant to include Execution of Tymofiy Mykolayovych Shadura, Tymofii Shadura, Tymofiy Shadura, Execution of Tymofiy Shadura, Tymofiy Mykolayovych Shadura and Tymofii Mykolayovych Shadura. Super Ψ Dro 18:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled the other mentioned redirects to this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all above redirects per the nominator. These redirects were created when the murdered soldier's name was thought to be Tymofii Shadura, but that turned out to be incorrect. Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of jaguars and leopards

The section this targets does not contain a comparison of jaguars and leopards, apart from a single sentence about their coat patterns, and should not contain that content as it would be out of the article's scope. This previously targeted Jaguar versus leopard and Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards, both of which have been deleted at AFD. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete these redirects. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to something that isn't in the article, and shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects show sloppy editing by a now blocked editor that treated this as their pet topic regardless of notability and tried to maintain a sort of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. That shouldn't be misconstrued as people expecting to find this content on the encyclopedia.

Jaguar vs leopard

These were originally created to target the article Jaguar versus leopard, which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar versus leopard. To prevent these redirects from being properly deleted per WP:G8 they were retageted to the leopard article. The section these redirects target has no mention of the topic "Jaguar vs leopard", mentioning jaguars only once. In addition there are WP:XY issues, as these could target either Jaguar or Leopard. Therefore, DELETE. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete these redirects. BhagyaMani (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to something that isn't in the article, and shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potable alcohol

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 keep. Jay 💬 08:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this title might be relevant to ethanol in particular. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Flo (Serie)

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. Jay 💬 08:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for this to exist, nothing links here at all. Obvious misspelling Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Chinese politicians

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 keep. Jay 💬 08:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems completely irrelevant, unclear why this might be misspelled Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Mid Sussex(UK Parliament constituency)

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. Jay 💬 08:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to lack of space between title and disambiguator. The target represents the title with the correct spacing.. Steel1943 (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Homburg+(hat)

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. Jay 💬 08:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely title due to the use of the plus. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The School Up North

Searching online, I came to the conclusion that these phrases are relatively generic and used for more than one rivalry, especially for Ole Miss ([2], [3], [4] [5]), but also for the Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry ([6], [7], etc.). My sense is that given the various usage, targeting both to College rivalry is most appropriate, but others may have additional perspectives on what the primary topic is here. signed, Rosguill talk 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (oppose retarget). I think anyone searching for a specific rivalry would type in some variation of the rivalry name (i.e. "Michigan-Ohio State rivalry," "Michigan-Ohio State," "Ohio State-Michigan," "The Game," all of which lead to the football rivalry page either directly or indirectly), and not the nickname some supporters of one school use for the other school. Likewise, anyone looking up info on the generic "college rivalry" would not find it by searching for "the school up north" so a retarget there really does not make sense either. Frank Anchor 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think it's an unlikely search term and, as Frank Anchor mentions, if you are searching for that term you likely are aware of better terms to search instead. I don't see these redirects as helpful and I think they're more likely to cause confusions as oppose to being helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least show Wikipedia still has some sense of humor left. I regret calling attention to the status of the old redirect after the one I created had its pointer moved. Going straight here feels a little spiteful, TBH. Not cool. DarkAudit (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RfD and similar processes have nothing to do with spite and everything to do with centralizing discussion and prioritizing consensus as a community. Assume good faith, please. signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to college rivalry. Seems like a reasonable (albeit somewhat colloquial) search term for the concept of college rivalry. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crossword puzzle Dronebogus (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norph

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:SSRT notes that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. Making a cross-wiki redirect here doesn't make sense (this is not commonly wikified nor a repeatedly recreated page), so I propose that this cross-wiki redirect be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsensical cross-site redirect no-one is likely to use Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my suggestion that this person could be notable; see this edit. Basically, each paper listed has tons of coauthors, so the citations/authors ratio is too low. By the way, I still maintain that we should retarget this redirect to Chada Norphanphoun, for the same reasons as before. Duckmather (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wikispecies page only lists the name (Chada Norphanphoun), the abbreviation (Norph.) and the fact that she's a mycologist, all of these are facts that almost any user of the redirect will likely already know. That doesn't make it a good redirect in my view. I'm wondering about the bigger picture too: can Wikispecies entries for taxonomists be expected to grow into encyclopedic articles? should we create redirects for every taxonomist not covered on Wikipedia? – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yin-Yarn

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 Kirby's Epic Yarn#Plot. ✗plicit 03:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_21&oldid=1152139209"