Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21

< March 20

March 22 >

March 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2022.

Utricle (fruit)

• Utricle (fruit) → Achene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per the description of "utricle" in the target article, as well as third party search results, it seems the subject of this redirect is a different subject than the target article's subject. For this reason, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete I believe Steel1943 is correct. "Utricles are essentially achenes in which the pericarp is significantly larger than the mature seed" (Simpson, 2010). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

TUROPHOBIA

• TUROPHOBIA → List of phobias#T  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think that people usually type SCREAMING, especially about such obscure terms. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete No transclusions. Not a likely search term in all caps. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as the admin who moved the original article - which I'll add has been deleted as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

CAT:VIACOM

• CAT:VIACOM → Category:Viacom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely to be useful now that the target is a redirect to Category:Paramount Global. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

CAT:WAWTOFUI

• CAT:WAWTOFUI → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• CAT:WANIE → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely to be useful since the target was renamed from Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance in 2007. WANIE was originally Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)

• Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) → Russian Greek Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Perhaps somewhat unhelpfully, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) was closed in 2018 as "Redirect somewhere". It was eventually redirected to Russian Greek Catholic Church with a suitable hatnote. If this is acceptable, then it is clear that Russian Greek Catholic Church is not a disambiguation page and so Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be deleted. I would have used G14 if this wasn't controversial. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment a set index could be created somewhere, to list the Catholic churches in what is now and what was in the past Russia (ie. Russian Empire); which would list the churches, instead of the overview article "Catholic Church in Russia"; then this could be retargetted there, per the AfD outcome (since they seem to want to keep it) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete so long as no page exists disambiguating the term "Russian Catholic Church". If such a page is created, retarget there. Or create a DAB/SIA here; the 2018 AfD consensus would only preclude creating it as a DAB for just those two pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013

• Ukrainian Revolution of 2013 → Euromaidan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There wasn't any 'Ukrainian revolution of 2013', so this seems to be an implausible misnomer. The revolution happened in 2014, and we have an article on it, Revolution of Dignity. The question is, do we delete this redirect, redirect it to Revolution of Dignity (as a potential typo), or leave it tied to the article on the Euromaidan movement, which does include 2013 events (though they were not yet a revolution at that stage)? RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Both articles’ intros support the idea that the protests led to the revolution, and one could conceive of the two as a four-month “revolution.” As a reader following the link is expecting an article about something that started in 2013, I would prefer keeping the redirect as is, but I’m also fine with changing it to the other. —Michael Z. 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I lean toward deletion per WP:XY: Euromaidan was not (generally described by reliable sources as) a revolution, and the Revolution of Dignity did not take place in 2013, so it's not obvious which of the two directions to correct in. However, it's at least a closer to match to the latter (to which Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 redirects, and which does characterize a build-up starting in 2013), so my second choice would be a retarget there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. I find it a close call between Keep and Delete, but I think re-targeting to Revolution of Dignity would be a mistake. That re-targeting tends to imply that 2013 had nothing to do with it, which is misleading. Without this redirect, the possible-match list that drops down when typing in the search box would show "Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-14", which acknowledges the 2013 roots of the 2014 revolution. Google for the redirect-title phrase shows both articles together at the top, with Revolution of Dignity first. Overall, delete seems best to me. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alkiviadis

• Alkiviadis → Alcibiades  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Anachronistic transliteration that fails WP:RFFL, as the topic has no affinity to modern Greek. Avilich (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The question I would put is, how likely is it that someone reading Greek sources—perhaps tour guides or other tourist literature—or recent histories by modern Greek authors—would run across this form, and wonder who it is? If there's even a small possibility that this form is currently in use, and that people might want to look it up on English Wikipedia, then we should keep it unless it's needed for some other purpose. I don't feel confident in my ability to guess whether people would or wouldn't run across it—but if this is a typical rendering in modern Greek, then I would guess it could come up. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are people called AΛKIBIADHC in both ancient and modern times, and I don't see how the modern "Alkiviadis" could more likely refer to the Alcibiades than any other person. There is in Wikipedia a Greek general named Alkiviadis Stefanis, which is itself a better target for the redirect "Alkiviadis" simply for the fact that he has the actual spelling in the name. Another possibility is retargeting to Alcibiades (disambiguation), but this spelling doesn't appear there. Avilich (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of any replies I would suggest a soft delete, so that anybody can recreate it with a better target. Avilich (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:S

• Wikipedia:S → Help:Searching  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, which is possibly the most important resource for newcomer content writers. Currently, WP:S is basically unused, way under the shadow of the main shortcut H:S. Excessive numbers of shortcuts defeat the benefit of shortcuts.

In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources is probably the most important, undervalued section in the whole of the project for new content writers, and it has shortcuts that are hard to remember. This would be a much better use for WP:S.

If this is not shot down for a reason I don't expect, I will advertise this discussion on the relevant pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Convert to disambiguation page. A section of a subpage is too specialized for a one-letter shortcut. WP:S could mean a lot things and a cross-namespace redirect to Help:Searching is not the most natural. WP:S has a lot of incoming links but nearly all of them are from alphabetical lists of all one-letter WP shortcuts without saying where they go, so changing it doesn't break those uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Making a disambiguation page out of something that is essentially never used is just silly. Is the aim to make sure that such a high value shortcut remains unused?

  A section of of a subpage may sound "specialised", but this is part of the point. It is not "specialised" but centrally important to the most basic editor function on the project, writing content. This section, currently WP:RSPSS, is way out of balance in terms of how important it is to the prominence of its location. A single-character shortcut may be sufficient to fix that, and will certainly help. I considered suggesting WP:RSPSS be spun out to its own page, but decided against this, because, despite its standalone usefulness to content writing, its maintenance is extremely detailed and it should be boldly edited by newcomers without reading the extensive context present above.

  WP:S could mean a lot of things, but current doesn't. And what better meaning to give it than Sources for content? -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If we pick a Sources target then it should be the same as WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCES, meaning Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. I'm fine with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I had looked at that and gave it some thought. In terms of Policy, WP:SOURCES is the root of policy on sources, but it is extremely limited to policy-wonk-thought, and it is not very good, notably in how it fails to adequately cross reference WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). Limited to Policy theory that is not immediately practical. It is a partial blurb on the theory that undies the source rules. In contrast, WP:RSPSS is the end result list that edits should consult.

The shortcuts are not meant to be a content guide, but quick reference memorable shortcuts. Editors on the ground do not a quicker reference to the non-practical section of WP:V. They need it to get to the sources cheat sheet, WP:RSPSS.

Also, having multiple catchy shortcuts pointing to the same thing is another waste of catchy shortcuts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep since this redirect has targeted the current page (or a redirect towards it leftover from page moves) since 2007. At this point, due to targeting the current page for about 15 years, there's too much potential for links in edit summaries to be broken in the event the redirect is retargeted. If necessary to disambiguate "S", Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) could be created, but that may be overkill; it may be better to just add a hatnote for 1–2 other possibilities that "WP:S" could refer to, and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)