Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 29

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schützenpanzer (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 29 July 2024 (→‎metal age: D). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2024.

Big G

Turn into dab I find it hard to believe that Big Gemini is the primary meaning of Big G. In my experience it's most often used to refer to the gravitational constant. But there's so many things that are 'Big G' out there that I wouldn't consider any of them primary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Mario

No mention of "Metal Mario" on the target page. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden crisis

I feel like there are a lot of sorts of things one might expect to see when they search this term (for example, Mexico–United_States_border_crisis#Biden_administration or 2023 United States banking crisis, or any other "crisis" during the administration might be sought), and I don't suspect that any particular one is the WP:PTOPIC. I think that this should either be disambiguated or deleted, as I don't think the current redirect can be justified absent a primary topic. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the current target smacks of WP:RECENTISM and there is no clear alternative. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at Presidency of Joe Biden there are many things that have been called a crisis during his term in office that could be referred to (especially by political opponents) as "Biden crisis" but this is by far the primary topic. Is that recentism? It's too soon to know! What we do know is that people using this search term now are overwhelmingly going to be looking for the current target. If that changes in the future we can reevaluate the redirect at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many storms in a teacup were called the Biden crisis. There's no clear target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Cities

Not sure if this is the best target as Minister for Cities (Australia) exists - also not sure if that is the best title for that article either. I'm not familiar with the recent political cabinet reshuffling so there might be content forking between the current target and Minister for Cities (Australia). Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sportacus 9

there are theories that robbie rotten was the previous sportacus and wore the number 9, though they have little to no evidence that could be used here. retarget to his article, keep as is, or delete as fancruft? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect to sportacus. Robbie rotten and number 9 (sportacus 9) are not the same person. Robbie and number 9 where butting heads (see https://web.archive.org/web/20040108161211/http://www.lazytown.com/pages/about/concept/theoriginsstory.html ). Robbie later became Robbie rotten (see https://web.archive.org/web/20031225235205/http://www.lazytown.com/pages/about/concept/robbierotten.html). Number 9 (sportacus 9) has much more similarities with sportacus 10 (the current sportacus) than Robbie, so that redirect makes sense for now. Snævar (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name has been changed from "Sportacus" to "Sportacus 10" in the first sentence of article but there is no explanation and the article title has not been changed. If there is no explanation of "9" or "10" in the article, the redirect is not useful and should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

CNR. Should we retarget to Wiki#Security? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Ca talk to me! 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Keep Actually, I am convinced by the below arguments. CheckUser is Wikipedia specific(no room for confusion), and new users may come across the term checkuser in the examples provided below. Ca talk to me! 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING - no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to see how the sausage is made; just dumping them into project space unawares is frankly kind of cruel. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh (weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main->Project, such as Administrators noticeboard (and variations), Autoconfirmed, Disambiguation page, Good article, and many more (can sift through Category:Redirects to project space to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main->project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Wikipedia, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez: redirects from the mainspace to project space are discouraged (see WP:CNR for the background) and frequently deleted. Exceptions do exist, most commonly (but not exclusively) where it is desirable that the target page is easy to find by very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet (administrators noticeboard and Wikipedia help are examples). The second most common is for internal aspects that people outside the project will have heard of (or assume exist) and want to look up but which don't have an encyclopaedic target (e.g. good articles). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it unreasonable to think that those two are things a new user would be likely to search for, and not CheckUser, when CheckUser is used as a rationale for a block or referenced on those noticeboards sometimes. I am not saying they shouldn't be discouraged, but this is one that actually makes sense, in my view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's nothing inherently wrong with CNRs. Our goal is to help the reader get to where they want to go. Anyone typing "CheckUser" into the search bar evidently wants to get to the project page. Deleting it is just removing a helpful, unambiguous redirect for no reason. C F A 💬 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect to non-reader content. A reader would not be affected by a checkuser outcome, unless they edit. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful CNR shortcut created by a well-established editor many years ago (2017) based on another CNR shortcut (Checkuser). That one was created by another well-established editor many years before that (2006). 1) Both are firmly "grandfathered in" CNRs, and 2) per WP:R#KEEP, R3, R4 and R5. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metal age

different targets, and there's an article for the metal ages... which is itself divided into 3 ages, the last of which seems to be referred to as "the" metal age, even though they're grouped together because they're different metals. i'll vote for retargeting both of those to metal ages, unless someone actually knows their stuff cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate at Metal Age, then retarget The Metal Age there. I guess I know some stuff, and it looks like "Metal Age" or "The Metal Age" (both singular) could refer to:
  • The Metal Ages (Copper, Bronze, Iron) in the traditional three age system, collectively – but this is more of a turn of phrase than a formal period [1][2][3]
  • The Metal Age in the prehistory of Southeast Asia – a specific, formal period (presumably because bronze and iron arrived there simultaneously) [4][5][6][7][8][9]
  • Hesiod's metallic ages (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron) [10][11][12]
  • Thief II
I don't see a primary topic amongst them and I'm also not sure about Metal Ages as standalone article, there's not much to say about them collectively other than that they all involved metal. @Iskandar323: What do you think? – Joe (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Joe. I think they should both redirect to Metal Ages (though this should possibly move to the singular, both as best practice stylistically and apparently as the most common form in scholarship (Ngrams)). While the page as is stubby, it's for lack of attention, not for lack of material. The scholarly literature using the conceptual period grouping is considerable. The Metal Age in Southeast Asia might have a slightly different progression, but it is conceptually the same thing. Hesiod's idea within an idea mercifully has a quite different form. The Thief II title name is not something I think we need to be concerned with, any more than we need to disambiguate "resurrection" to account for the fourth installment of the Aliens franchise when directing to that topic. If a disambiguation page feels warranted, I would suggest linking to it with a hatnote from the Metal Ages page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about combining the Metal Age of Southeast Asia and the "metal ages" of the rest of the world. In most of the Old World the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages are firmly distinct periods (the latter two being two of the original three ages) and referring to them together as either "the metal age" or "the metal ages" is honestly something I'd never come across until today (though Google Scholar tells me it happens). By contrast archaeologists of Southeast Asia consistently use it as a distinct, top-level period with the subdivisions early, developed, and proto-historic rather than copper, bronze, and iron. So we could write Metal Age Southeast Asia but not Metal Age Europe or Metal Age Southwest Asia because nobody really talks about that (instead we have Bronze Age Europe, Iron Age Europe). – Joe (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it's somewhat academic at this point when a Metal Age of Southeast Asia page doesn't exist yet. I think the reason why the Metal Ages are emerging more and more as a reference point is because the three-age system is a bit dated and broken and underappreciates the major technology step of metallurgy. The stone age is also, in of itself, massive – comprising the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic, so it's generally pretty useless and unhelpful to group that with the bronze and iron ages, which are very distinct from the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuzlocke

"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [13]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the previously deleted information from the current target article to this page, creating a new article here. I can see the WP:DUE weight issue with nuzlocke being in the main article, but it looks like it should pass WP:GNG, so give it its own article right here. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E610

While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as LG Optimus L5, Orange SPV and South African Class 5E1, Series 2. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Olympic Champions C-1 Slalom

It is unclear why this should redirect to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Men C-1 Slalom and not to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Women C-1 Slalom which is available since 2020. Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - This appears to be the original title of the template it points to. I presume the women's event was started in 2020 or not covered until then. Template shortcuts are very often ambiguous. As they are for editors (not readers), this does little harm. Weak because I am sympathetic to the nominators point. If this were in the mainspace a disambiguation would very much be due; however, such an action is not appropriate for a template redirect and I do not support deletion (because ambiguity is not grounds to delete a shortcut). There is also no benefit of obscuring the page history through deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tax cuts for the rich

Should probably be deleted as non-neutral and poorly matched. While "tax cuts for the rich" are sometimes promoted as a method of trickle-down economics, they really aren't the same concept. Redirecting to tax cut does not make a lot of sense either. Jruderman (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's neutral (and even if it wasn't, redirects don't have to be neutral) and summarises the article's lead well: Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and Major examples of what critics have called "trickle-down economics" in the U.S. include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Major UK examples include Liz Truss's mini-budget tax cuts of 2022. The article describes the topic as primarily tax cuts for rich people - it's a good redirect. BugGhost🦗👻 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_29&oldid=1237381774"