Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2023.

Reynell (disamiguation)

[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined R3. I still think that this title should be deleted, per WP:RDAB, because redirects with incorrect qualifiers are almost always pointless and unnecessary. Disambiguators exist only for the purpose of, er, disambiguation, and they aren't natural search terms. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: I'd say the original declination was simply because the reviewer read "disamiguation" as "disambiguation", as I did when I first noted it.
@Sdrqaz courtesy pinging you on this. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I somehow didn't see the typo, sorry. In my opinion, that takes it from being a clear-cut decline to a murky grey area for R3. For such cases, I would prefer RfD for the community to decide instead of an individual administrator, but I now don't have a strong opinion on this nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I didn't notice the typo at first.AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given "(disambiguation)" links of this kind are only used to signal intentional links to disambiguation pages, a redirect with a typo undermines the message (looks like a mistake, not an intentional link). It's arguably costly; since the "(disambiguation)" is mostly a signal to editors it's not really plausible that a reader would search this, and the typo opens the door for similarly unhelpful redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: del per nom BhamBoi (talk) 06:22, 14 February 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).

Sunata Kangvalkulkij (Q85511055)

[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with Wikidata disambiguators are unlikely search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 13 February 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).

Sonic.exe FNF

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in target article. Was deleted as G7 before being restored as requested here. I am the original creator of this redirect and this redirect can no longer be deleted as G7 due to being restored after deletion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a problem why it cannot be mentioned at the target now per User:Alsan 360's statement at the RfU? Jay 💬 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was previously supported by a primary source which was why it was removed in the first place. The Sonic.exe section of the article was also filled with fancruft before being cut down. The reason the redirect was deleted wasn’t because of any drama but it was because the statement of the mod was removed from the article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. It was removed here. Delete as not mentioned. Jay 💬 04:41, 21 February 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).

Militant Christianity

[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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 14:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Further discussion is warranted. It's clear that the current target is unsuitable, and a number of relevant alternatives were named: Christian fundamentalism, Christianity and violence, Crusader movement, and Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant (as a {{avoided double redirect}} for Church Militant). I would add Militant Christian Patriots and Militant Christian Party. Notably Sideros and Esbern Snare refer to "militant Christianity" in reference to the crusades, which affirms the suggestion of Crusader movement. It was noted by Jenhawk777 that Christian fundamentalism has often been isolationist rather than militant, however the article itself makes numerous explicit references to militancy so I think it definitely is a viable target. BDD suggested disambiguation, and I agree that it seems like the best course. – Scyrme (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted a disambiguation page at the redirect; feel free to amend it as needed. – Scyrme (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the establishment of a disambiguation page. TNstingray (talk) 01:59, 14 February 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).
[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. Jay 💬 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects no longer serve a purpose. The relevant material was apparently moved to Early modern Netherlandish cartography during a split by a user who has since been blocked, and that article has itself been blanked and redirected; the content was not merged back in, unless I'm mistaken. I've not been able to find a relevant place to retarget these to (the corresponding category, Category:Dutch celestial cartography in the Age of Discovery, created by the same blocked user, contains some some constellations and biographies but no relevant general history articles.) Unless a viable target can be found, it would be best to delete them all to allow uninhibited searching and vacate the titles until relevant content is added to Wikipedia. – Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support deleting them all, partly because this blocked user created lots of these nationalistic articles, categories, et cetera which violated WP:OR. I also believe the user's article and categories of Dutch celestial cartography was mostly based around the work of Petrus Plancius, a Flemish person... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:50, 13 February 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).

ATX Open

[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 resolved. The article has now been created and Himeshlala has been blocked for not being receptive to several warnings about moving tennis tournament pages. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was tagged for speedy deletion, with the rationale "No indication this is the same event". That's not a speedy deletion reason but the existence of this redirect probably merits wider discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is going on here? I'm the one who created the redirect, and I'm the one who asked to delete the article. A disruptive editor changed the name of an article to "ATX Open" and it was reverted. All I want is to delete the improper article. Why is this particular item such a problem? If you look others have an "ATX Open" in their draft pages for when it is actually ready to create. Right now you have redirected this article to "Texas Tennis Open" which is absolutely wrong! This editor has switched pages like this in the past for which he was admonished, so why is this time such a big deal? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click), you are not the creator of the redirect, Himeshlala is via a page move: Himeshlala moved page Texas Tennis Open to ATX Open: Texas open will be held in Austion from 2023 onwards. No point making a new page. Furthermore, this is not an improper article, but a redirect. No indication this is the same event is not a speedy deletion rationale, but a perfectly valid one at RfD. If this part of a behavioral issue, the forum for discussing that is WP:ANI. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I created the redirect. He moved an article to a bad title and it was quickly moved back. Yes I could take him to ANI since he's been warned so many times on his talk page but sometimes it's not worth it. You know how ANI gets. He does good work except for his page moves. It's easier to fix and move on. This is over-bureaucracy. I did the best I could so admins don't have to deal with the stupid stuff. Sometime in the next week or so, an actual "ATX Open" article must be created since the inaugural event will start February 27. I hope you figure it out by then so folks who are working on draft pages can insert them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Himeshlala was the one who created the title "ATX Open" with their page move. That you moved the page back doesn't mean you usurp the title's creation. For the purposes of speedy deletion, this is laid out at WP:G7: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. I'm confused what you mean by I did the best I could so admins don't have to deal with the stupid stuff. You realize that by nominating the page for speedy deletion, you are asking an admin to deal with this! I would actually argue that RfD is less bureaucratic than CSD; you can nominate any redirect you find problematic without having to shoehorn it into some alphanumeric code and then it gets deleted seven days later unless someone happens to disagree with you. The fact that there is an open RfD does not preclude anyone from writing content on this topic—it's encouraged! Simply overwrite the redirect with an article. If that were to occur, then this RfD would then be closed as "moot". -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know. Obviously blanking the page doesn't count as overwriting. What would be nice is if there were some bot that would do cleanup of reverted page moves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, don't blank the page. The RfD tag needs to be in place while the RfD is open. If you want to write an article on the subject, simply write it under the RfD tag (or in a draft). The RfD and redirect content will then be removed when the RfD is closed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inherent problem with the rfd method.... time. Usually that's no matter but in some cases, like this one it is. The event is fast approaching and readers were already being sent to the wrong article. The correct article obviously isnt ready yet so it is better for there to be no link at all. Imagine in the last two weeks if someone created article Superbowl 57 and had it link to beach volleyball. We'd want that fixed pretty quick. Or better yet the creation Superbowl 60 linking to the Rose Bowl. I'll bet that gets fixed instantly. It would almost be better if the page redirected to Austin, Texas since that is why they named it the ATX Open. ATX is the well-known nickname of Austin where the tennis tournament will be held. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the obvious solution would be to create the article for the event soon! Sports in Austin, Texas would be an even better place to redirect to, except there's one problem: there's no mention of tennis there! Once the article is created, that'd be a good place to add a blurb about Tennis in Austin with a link to the newly minted article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been created. And since the Sports in Austin, Texas article was missing the event, it has also been added there. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 18 February 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).

Nigerian fortune tellers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21#Nigerian fortune tellers

タルプール王朝

[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. Jay 💬 14:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is in Japanese, not related to the subject. It started as an article in Japanese, not sure if that's important Drapetomanic (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this does appear to be the Japanese name for the subject, but there doesn't appear to be any affinity between Japanese and the subject. That said, I'm not sure if RfD is the place to be discussing the deletion of an article created just a few hours ago. Probably one of the criteria for speedy deletion apply. In any case, the redirect itself is not suitable per WP:RFOREIGN. A7V2 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless there's a source explaining the article's connection with Japan. --Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 14 February 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).

Street arab

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21#Street arab

Jade Armor (TV series)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 20#Jade Armor (TV series)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_13&oldid=1141000357"