Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 17

< February 16

February 18 >

February 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2023.

Greco-Roman ethnography

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25#Greco-Roman ethnography

Cercaria (trematode)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Cercaria (trematode)

Lactilla

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 Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lactilla → Ann Yearsley (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems to be a name by which Yearsley was sometimes known, but isn't used in the article, except in citations to a book with this title. Discussion at the talk page hasn't resulted in any interest in adding a mention after a month. As such, a reader who searches for this isn't taken to anything informative. The only other article that mentions the name is Hannah More, which wouldn't be a suitable redirect target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is a book sourced in the article that uses the name in its title. Have you looked through that book to see if there are any useful quotes regarding the name worth adding? That seems like a much better option than just deleting the redirect which already appears to be a useful search term. QuietHere (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere: As explained above, I've inquired at the talk page to determine if there's scope to add a discussion of the name, then proposed deletion after a month without a reply. I'm also not sure why you've repeated what I said above about Waldron's book. Google Books doesn't bring up anything useful in that book for me – it shows 47 results for the name, of which 46 are the book title in the page headers, and one is a passage from a poem. But I see Gobonobo has found some sources and added the name to the lede, so I'm happy to withdraw this if no one objects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say that above. You mentioned the book but didn't say anything about having read any of it. And I would say Gobonobo's additions cover it well enough to justify my vote. Might've been a bit quick to throw down that oppose before but I'm definitely leaning that way now.

And for what it's worth, I don't find talk page discussions on random articles, especially ones which only got about a couple dozen edits so far this decade, getting a large amount of attention. Lack of response doesn't mean you're right, just that other editors may not have seen your query in that small venue. QuietHere (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't mean I'm "right". How can a question be "right"? What are you talking about? Can someone close this to avoid further nonsense? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 19 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).

Extruded Plastic Dingus

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 13:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extruded Plastic Dingus → Hula hoop (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This appears to be from The Hudsucker Proxy; however, it is not mentioned there or at q:The Hudsucker Proxy and it is an unlikely search term to hula hoop, so it should probably be deleted. TartarTorte 15:43, 17 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).

List of Greek ships

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 2#List of Greek ships

Vero Moda

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 Bestseller (company). A bot accidentally changed the redirect target in March 2022 based on an accidental edit to Bestseller (company). RFD isn't needed to fix the error. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Vero Moda → Filler text (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be deleted because it literally points to the article for filler text. The original redirect (created in 2008) targeted "Vero Moda"'s parent company "Bestseller"; none of the other subsidiaries of "Bestseller" appear to have their own pages 91.103.191.218 (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bestseller (company)#Women's clothing: term has nothing to do with current target that I'm aware of but very clearly is the name of a subsidiary of Bestseller as nominator says. QuietHere (talk) 18:28, 17 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).

Multifandom

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 💬 13:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multifandom → wiktionary:multifandom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per WP:SSRT, "We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." This term is barely used anyway[1], and nowhere on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Fram here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:38, 19 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).

Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023

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 💬 14:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 → Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 → Tornadoes of 2023 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It is standard to name tornado outbreaks like that and create redirects for events that qualify as a tornado outbreak (6-10+ tornadoes), which are not notable enough for a stand alone article, but notable enough for a section in the Tornadoes of (Year) article. Example of recent naming convention: Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023 & Tornado outbreak of December 12–15, 2022. The event had 15 tornadoes, including an EF3 in the Houston metropolis, meaning the event is likely to be searched, especially with the first tornado emergency being issued for that area during the tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023’s page information shows 286 views in the last 30 days, meaning it is a searched term. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red-herring, it was viewed that many times because it was on AFD, DRV, and RFC, most of which were listed by you. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with nom that this is an unlikely search term. Page views are to be taken with a grain of salt because of search engine results. United States Man (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it isn’t the exact title up for deletion, the NWS titled their article on the event January 24, 2023 Tornado Outbreak. Just posting this to help establish notability/search-ability of it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking NWS event pages isn't helpful. Offices all name the same outbreak differently. Plus, using that would mean the title should be "January 24, 2023 Tornado Outbreak" or some variation, not "Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023". United States Man (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what I believe to be a plausible search term which is even being used as Elijahandskip noted above. It's titled differently enough from the target that I could easily imagine someone typing that in and not being able to find the page they should be sent to. QuietHere (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plausible search term. Plus, we have redirects for similar outbreaks like Tornado outbreak of April 19-20, 2020. 71.125.62.208 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why ignore views? Why run the risk of inconveniencing someone for no actual benefit? Seems like a fairly plausible search term anyway per the above, and this is unambiguous so I'm not really seeing any reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Elijahandskip.

Poodle23 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the mdash version, Retarget the hyphenated version to match the mdash version. Plausible search term, should target the section. — {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t do that per WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT. 71.125.62.208 (talk) 21:35, 24 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).

Rvvv

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 💬 07:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rvvv → Remote viewing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible search term. There's absolutely no reason for the two extra V's. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: this is an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:42, 20 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).

Bjoerk

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bjoerk → Björk (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7 § Bjoerk – retarget to Björk

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 19#Medulla (Bjoerk album), which led to the deletion of numerous redirects that existed based solely on this specific spelling difference. It seems apparent to me, as I wrote in that AfD, that it should've been all or nothing, and since consensus there was to delete all of those, I think this one should go too. QuietHere (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Doomsdayer520, Pppery, and Shhhnotsoloud as fellow participants in previous RfD. QuietHere (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also Muhandes, Presidentman, and LaundryPizza03 who participated in a second RfD which I was unaware of 'til just now. QuietHere (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am in favor of deleting this redirect for basic housekeeping purposes, as the community has pretty much decided that "Bjoerk" is an unlikely misspelling of the famous musician's name. I was the nominator for the two recent RfDs referenced above, in which we eventually deleted a whole bunch of other redirects containing that misspelling. I refrained on the high-level redirect being discussed now because it had already survived an RfD discussion back in 2017: [2]. I find that older discussion to be overly bureaucratic, with a focus on what-ifs that could happen later rather than simply cleaning up someone's old mess. That's my opinion for this particular vote now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plausible phonetic misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two recent RfDs reached the opposite conclusion on the the plausible misspelling, and with reasoning beyond just saying it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In German it's normal to put an 'e' when you can't type an umlaut. Drapetomanic (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drapetomanic is this a keep vote or are you just sharing this info? QuietHere (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK keep, someone who only hears the name is reasonably likely to guess this spelling. Drapetomanic (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems unlikely in standard English, but a somewhat plausible misspelling or phonetic spelling. I don't think it meets any deletion criteria. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due the fact that Icelandic is a Germanic language. It's rare, but there are examples of usage: (eg: [3] [4]). I agree that it wouldn't be used much, but it's at worst harmless. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 22 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).

Unipersonalist

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 24#Unipersonalist

Wikipedia:KINDLE

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. With no prejudice to adding a mention at this specific section if necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:KINDLE → Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books and print articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirects WP:KINDLE to a section: WP:Citingsources#Books and print articles, where the Kindle device is not mentioned at all. Makes no sense and simply creates confusion. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 03:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was created by the same editor at the same time they redirected Wikipedia:EBOOK to the same target. The Kindle is both the most popular ebook reader and format of ebooks; the section talks about how to specify the location of the material in the publication when citing ebooks with no page numbers. To reduce confusion we could mention the Kindle and Nook in that section. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StarryGrandma's case, though I don't think mentioning popular eBook brands is necessary because they are already named numerous times in the eBook article. QuietHere (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of how the shortcut helped. Perhaps the target could have a line or two about how to enable page numbers on Kindle? Jay 💬 06:25, 24 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).

Metal Masters Tour

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25#Metal Masters Tour

Baylor University Press

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 moot. Redirect has been converted into an article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor University Press → Baylor University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

delete, there is no information about this topic in the article to which it is redirected. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of university presses#Baylor University Press after creating an appropriate anchor there. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep searching quickly. It seems pretty easy to make a meaningful section of Baylor University talking about their press: Carey Newman: How to Rescue a University Press and BU Printing Job Regional Winner as two quick findings of independent sources covering the Press beyond the University/Press covering itself. Don't see an advantage to delete since it's unlikely WP:REDYES would help create/justify a standalone article. Skynxnex (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the amount of incoming links. I think it would be preferable for these to have just been piped to display the "press" text and link to the relevant article at Baylor University, but because a lot of links already link to that, maybe we should save it. BhamBoi (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDYES and WP:RFD#D10. There is little more than a (would-be) circular link in the list article. Of course this can be kept/recreated should a section be added to Baylor University, though a standalone article also seems viable. A7V2 (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No addition has been yet made to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:REDYES. The redirect to the list article is implausible, since there's no section for this press there. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I've gone ahead and fleshed it out into a (beginning) article.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]
Close as moot. Jay 💬 03:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Quon's article should survive is another question but since it's no longer a redirect, close as moot. QuietHere (talk) 04:08, 23 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).