Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sillyfolkboy (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 1 March 2024 (→‎Steve Green (runner): +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2024.

2032 United States presidential election

Pointing to the generic article isn't useful for anyone searching as it doesn't include any information about the 2032 election.

The 2028 equivalent was deleted a while ago for being premature and salted until after the 2024 election. Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 23:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive (2018 film) / Drive (2017 film)

Film was never released in 2017 or 2018, so propose deletion per WP:RDELETE#D2 as misleading/potential for confusion. The traffic dropped to zero after I removed the final link to the 2018 redirect at the end of last year. 2pou (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the 2018 redirect, as the film was scheduled to be released in 2018 before being pushed back to 2019 (although the traffic has dropped to essentially zero pageviews). Delete the 2017 one, as I can't find any evidence of plans to release it in that year. Regards, SONIC678 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2018 redirect as it was definitely originally scheduled to be released in 2018, making it a plausible way to search for this. When created, the article initially gave a 2017 date ([1]) but I'm unsure if a reference exists for this, so I am neutral on the 2017 redirect for now. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xeque mate

per WP:RLANG harrz talk 21:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Miracle

Not mentioned at target. This redirect was created shortly after a relevant / similar discussion was closed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24#Georgia_Bulldogs'_Midnight_Miracle. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different redirect. It just says Midnight Miracle. Abhiramakella (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is far from the primary topic for the search term. Topping the list is a podcast, mentioned in a table at Luminary (podcast network)#Programming but that's not sufficient to anchor a redirect, and on the articles about all three of the hosts (targetting any one of the hosts would present XY issues; I can't rule out the podcast being notable. After that comes a skin oil/cream that doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all (and doesn't seem like it should be). Excluding both those brings up a myriad of different things, but none of them relate to American football. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COURT

The Arbitration Committee is not a court. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget. Someone using this redirect is plausibly looking for Wikipedia's court, and they should be taken to a page that explains that we don't have a court (or at least not a court of law) but the closest thing is the Arbitration Committee. The current page sort of does that, but not perfectly - Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration doesn't use the words exactly but does state "Arbitration is not a legal process", so would make an equally good target I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's confusing and misleading. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0 uses is kind of damning. The other redirects of the same sense have similarly low use [2][3][4]. (What the heck is [5].) Izno (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only existed for five weeks, and lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not relevant to whether a redirect should or should not be deleted. As for your "what the heck" this was redirected after the original content was moved to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, which is effectively an essay that emerged out of the discussions that created the Arbitration Committee. Basically it is saying (in attempted(?) legalese that an arbitration case can be requested either directly or by or via Jimbo, that Jimbo can direct a case to be opened and that Jimbo can investigate matters on his own if he wants. The first part is obviously still true (anyone can request a case directly), the second is also technically true (Jimbo can request a case in the same way as any other editor, including related to disputes he is asked to look at). Jimbo can't direct that a case be opened (anymore?). He can investigate a dispute if he chooses to do so, although he is very unlikely to do so and is very limited in what remedies he could impose (he renounced the right to unilaterally ban people in 2022 and gave up other advanced rights in 2023). Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the other examples of links of this sense, the first is a decade old, the second well on its way to that, and the third a year and a half old (and was previously deleted at MFD an eternity ago). That this one is only 5 weeks old doesn't inspire. Izno (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other redirect's aren't relevant to this one, and the age isn't really relevant either. The redirect is not doing any harm - indeed as it serves to correct misunderstandings it's the opposite of misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Usage of the redirect in discussions would increase confusion, not reduce it. It's good that it's not being used and it should be removed before it is. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if anyone did use this in a discussion, the context would make things clear. However, redirects like this are much more useful as search targets rather than for linking - for example a relatively new editor would plausibly search this, and be taken to exactly the page that explains what he have instead of a court, rather than unpredictable search results (sometimes several clicks/taps away) that may or may not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source were previously the top results for a "court" search in Wikipedia space. This redirect made search worse, not better. Bumping down other court-related results and repeating the top result is not a net positive. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree that it's misleading. In the unlikely event that a user entered this in the search box, the search results would be more useful than this redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no good single redirect; there are several WikiProjects that deal with courts and law, so none of them are a great option, and ARBCOM is not a court. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Wahlgren

I think this redirect should be deleted as the target page has minimal mentions to the subject (just a couple of name mentions) and subsequently is not helpful to anyone seeking information about the subject. Moreover the target page is just about a competition the subject took part in once. Not directly related to the subject. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While it seems the current target is the closest we can get in terms of relevance, that speaks more to the lack of notability of the subject. Grk1011 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this appears to be the most likely target for a redirect, however given the minimal coverage of the subject at the target the individual likely does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBLP enough to even warrant the redirect. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoxianzu Koreans

Retarget to Chaoxianzu. This redirect was created before the Chaoxianzu article was created, however the redirect refers to simply another name for Chaoxianzu. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 05:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the current target and proposed target (Korean Chinese).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Green (runner)

Delete. No runner is listed on the disambiguation page. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Golden State Party

Either there should be a stub article here to provide a place for more information to be added or this redirect should be deleted. The edit history says that the redirect was created to link to the inspiration for the name of the party. That may be true, but that article (Golden Party Badge) has no mentions of the topic of this one so I think this falls under reason #10 for deletion of a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crendrik (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who created the redirect. I looked into creating a stub first, but there's so very little available from reliable sources that I went with the redirect instead. I don't think "#10 If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article" applies, as there's next to nothing that I found with a quick search, other than the connection to the Golden Party Badge. I agree that Golden Party Badge should maybe have a mention of this Party in it, but I'm not sure where to insert that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Lok Sabha Elections

Redirect 2014 Lok Sabha elections also exists, and search results are not case sensitive. Delete this particular of the two to maintain consistency with redirects of other Indian elections. Did not find specific category in CSD, or else it was quick delete. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rational behind such pages, they are just redundancies, serving no purpose. For examples, we have CSD criterion 'implausible typo or misnomer' which mostly is because redirects should not be created just because they could be created. So here, as per me at least, just changing small-case 'e' to capital 'E' serves no purpose, as people searching both shall redirect to same page as per rational mentioned in original request. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
@ExclusiveEditor: WP:CSD R3 would not apply to a redirects that are title case instead of sentence case. CSD R3 does not apply to just "this shouldn't exist" type redirects, it applies to redirects in which you'd say "nobody in their right mind would think this is a reasonable search term". Redirects which one deems to be redundant or excessive are not eligible because they're not implausible typos or misnomers. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please strike the bolded delete part of your comment at the beginning of your comment here @ExclusiveEditor. You've already stated in your nomination that your vote is to delete and this is casting a vote twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Yes, I don't have any issue regarding this, and recognize CSD R3 as separate issue (solver). I am just trying to put my comment. Maybe I should put it below. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see the rational behind this page, just a redundancy, serving no purpose. For examples, we have CSD criterion 'implausible typo or misnomer' (which I know is not applicable here) which mostly is because redirects should not be created just because they could be created. So here, as per me at least, just changing small-case 'e' to capital 'E' serves no purpose, as people searching both shall redirect to same page as per rational mentioned in original request. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's very plausible for people to search using title case (and some methods of navigating Wikipedia are case sensitive) and no other valid reason to delete has been articulated - "Redundancy" is never a reason to delete a redirect. I've marked it as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of the sentence case title. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh and Thryduulf. No reason to delete this. A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Pokemon character)

the two only (pokémon character) redirects for pokémon, as opposed to the characters from the franchise. probably not worth making more for every other pokémon, or considering them all individual characters cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete (Pokemon character). I like how they aren't even consistent between each other as to whether they should have é or e. You'd think that they'd both be one or the other. Were the two redirects made by different people? In any case, delete both as per WP:UNHELPFUL-- a test search for Ralts (Pokemon character) pulled up List of Pokémon characters and List of generation III Pokémon as the first two results, with the latter being the page Ralts redirects to. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are both very plausible search terms - if we had articles about the characters it's possible they could be at these titles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Thryduulf. These are plausible search terms, and who cares about the accent above the E, or "character" in the disambiguator? I assume they'd still search it and reach their target regardless.Regards, SONIC678 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black War: Mission Exteme 2

Glaringly implausible typo, but can't be speedied because the target page was here for nearly a year. —Cryptic 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)

Delete per WP:RTYPO. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These aren't typos, so there's no actual reason for deletion. The coalition was formed following the 1992 election, so it's somewhat plausible as a search term or pre-emptively disambiguated link. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, the coalition was formed in 1994, but the preceding election was in 1992, and it seems reasonable that someone might associate it with the election year. I'm not familiar with Irish politics so I can't say for sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Rainbow Coalition was formed in 1994 not 1992. Spleodrach (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notwithstanding the nomination reason, the Rainbow Coalition appears from the article 24th Government of Ireland to have been formed in 1994. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it is misleading, retarget to 1992 Irish general election#Campaign per Paul, which mentions predictions and opinion polls about the coalition during the time. Jay 💬 13:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Paul, whose rationale is convincing that this is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul 012 and Thryduulf: when you say Keep, I think it is understood that you are saying the new target would be 24th Government of Ireland, which is the target of nominated target Rainbow Coalition (Ireland). The nom had merely moved the redirect Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992) to a different redirect title Rainbow Coalition (Ireland), just before making this nomination. 24th Government of Ireland is of '94, NOT '92, and I'm not sure if the election year of '92 is what you were going with. Jay 💬 16:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intention was for 24th Government of Ireland as the target, as an avoided double redirect. The election article is a reasonable alternative, but my primary preference is still for the (1994) 24th government article, for consistency. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either target works, but the government article is probably the better of the two. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul and redirect directly to 24th Government of Ireland to avoid the double redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley Elementary

Retarget to Wilmington massacre, as that is where the most information about this school can be found. The current target article does not mention "Parsley Elementary", so readers who go there will not find any explanation about what they are seeking. A school by that name was founded in 2001, and the current redirect was created as an article about that school in 2008. The article was WP:PRODded on 6 June 2011 (by Neutrality). A mention of the school was added to the Wilmington, North Carolina, article on 13 June 2011 (by Just Chilling, who has not edited Wikipedia since 25 July 2019), who also converted the school article to a redirect on the same day. The mention in that article was replaced with "Masonboro Elementary" on 23 November 2021 (by Onyxqk, with no edit summary). The change corresponds to a change of the name of the school made at around that time. There is much more of discussion of "Parsley Elementary" in the Wilmington massacre article, which contains a discussion of why the name of the school was selected in 2000 and why the name was then changed 20 years later. Additionally, I plan to restore a mention of the school's former name in the article about Wilmington, North Carolina. The school was renamed only a few years ago, so it is reasonable for people to be looking for information about a school with that name in that article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wilmington, North Carolina#Elementary schools instead, in order to fix the wrong-section-heading issue (the article does not have a section called "Primary schools", but does have a section called "Elementary schools"). As it stands currently (edit: thanks to the nom), the name 'Walter L. Parsley Elementary' does show up in the article, as the listing for Masonboro reads "Masonboro (formerly called Walter L. Parsley Elementary)". In addition, the text 'Walter L. Parsley Elementary' in that listing is a link to Wilmington massacre, the proposed-by-nom target. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leilani s

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 delete per WP:CSD#G6. The edit summaries make it clear this was created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was at this mistaken title for under a minute, unlikely search term. Rusalkii (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliability of Urban Dictionary

Delete. Nothing in this article is about the website's reliability. Neither was there anything about it when this redirect was made. I suppose someone could use the information in § Quality control to from their own opinion about the website's reliability, but that doesn't seem like enough to warrant this redirect. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Unz, where reliability of this website is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is in the context of Wikipedia though and is not part of a properly soured article, so I don't think we should target it from the main namespace. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It gets the reader to the relevant information. The content section doesn't discuss reliability per se, as you note in your nomination. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose creation of an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Urban Dictionary#Content which contains the information that allows someone to judge for themselves the site's reliability. I oppose a cross-namespace redirect as someone using this search term is far more likely looking for encyclopaedic content, which we have, not internal project discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Israel

This redirect might need a new target. Important because it is used in the {{Asia topic}} navbar, its deletion will probably mean it will be re-created later down the road. Created in 2007, it has been targeted and retargeted during its history. It seems that a better target is needed. See also Template talk:Asia topic#Edit request 25 February 2024 for more info. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create content here as suggested on the talk page by LilianaUwU and Sawyer-mcdonell this could be a disambig, list or overview article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it an actual page. This could very well be a summary of terrorism in Israel like Terrorism in the United States is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig for now, to be turned into an overview article - terrorism in Israel is certainly a notable topic with RS, and I agree with Liliana that it can be a standalone article. Also, there has been terrorism in Israel unrelated (or not directly related) to the I-P conflict, so readers aren't getting a full picture of the topic from the redirect. I have some concerns about NPOV with the redirect target as well, and creating a content page would help. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down And Dirtys

Slang term which is not referenced in the article. "And" is also improperly capitalized. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Down and dirty is a disambig, but the only thing plausibly pluralised there is the Canadian synonym for Cuba Libra, but that would presumably be "Down and dirties". The capitalisation of "and" is irrelevant as it's equally plausible to "Down and Dirtys". Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the reference to Cuba Libre from the dabpage, could not verify that this is an actual use for "Down and dirty". 162 etc. (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism against Joe Biden

Hangover over from merge. Redirect is a non-neutral term that isn't a common or reliably sourced term that would warrant protection. Move to delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There doesn't appear to be any significant precedent for retention of significantly POV-named redirects like this. Please note that I come to this discussion after reviewing edits to the redirect by a non-blocked DE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but mark as Non-Neutral. As per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects don't necessarily need to be neutral, because they're less visible to readers. I can see someone searching for this term rather easily, especially if they themselves hold the POV espoused by the non-neutral terminology. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. [6] ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann. This seems like a pretty plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible search term and the non-neutral tag ameliorates neutrality concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann and Voorts. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann and voorts. This kind of situation is exactly what the non-neutral redirect category is for. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_26&oldid=1211154235"