[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

July 25

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2023.

USS Arctic (disambiguation)

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 Speedy Deleted by GB Fan. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of this page, thought the target article, (USS Arctic), was a disambiguation page, when it was actually a set index article about ships. I then erroneously thought it satisfied WP:INTDAB, so I created a redirect page with "(disambiguation)" appended to the title, as described in WP:HOWTODAB. This page therefore serves no purpose. Purplemountainmantalk contribs 16:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplemountainman: Pages like this can also be deleted speedily per G7. Certes (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplemountainman and Certes: I’ve nominated the page for G7 (as well as for G14 since the redirect’s target is technically not a dab, though I dunno if the criterion would really apply.) Duckmather (talk) 19:22, 25 July 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).

胆

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. ✗plicit 00:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in a language other than English that points to an article not directly related with the language. Suggesting deletion based on point 8 of WP:R#DELETE and WP:RFOREIGN. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I was about to bring this here myself but wasn't sure whether the redirect's short history (a stub about the character) was worth keeping. Certes (talk) 17:10, 25 July 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).

湾

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. ✗plicit 00:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in a language other than English that points to an article not directly related with the language. Suggesting deletion based on point 8 of WP:R#DELETE and WP:RFOREIGN. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I was about to bring this here myself but wasn't sure whether the redirect's short history (a stub about the character) was worth keeping. Certes (talk) 17:11, 25 July 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).

Various Comptes Rendus redirects

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5#Various Comptes Rendus redirects

Ju-on -video side-

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. ✗plicit 12:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "-video side-" in the target article, leaving it unclear what the phrase refers to, as well as potentially leaving readers trying to find such a subject unable to locate it at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts regarding IP's evidence of use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Every site I've come across writes the manga title as "Ju-On: Video Side", and that version of the title is listed in the infobox of the article (and nowhere else). Now, the entry at Anime News Network has 呪怨─ｖｉｄｅｏ ｓｉｄｅ─序章 as the Japanese name.[2] Maybe this redirect is a half-translated form of that maintaining the hyphens? Probably delete this since there's essentially no information on the topic in the article and no use of that particular construction of -video side- in the text.
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).

Isometric perspective

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Isometric perspective

Prince Nicholas

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 swap out to Prince Nicholas (album) and move dab page to current title. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly ambiguous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Can you give some more direction on what needs to be further discussed, because everyone has agreed on what is to be done, and no one has disagreed on how it is to be done? Jay 💬 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I misread this as having a contradiction between the last few comments and the earlier ones. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 25 July 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).

Unused married name redirects with presumed 0 hits

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. ✗plicit 12:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another batch of married name redirects that should be deleted as they seem to be unused, per previous discussions on May 17 and June 18. These differ in that there were too many results to sift through in most of these, but I couldn't find a result that referred to the person with enough grounds for a redirect (I've hatted the edge cases, if anyone thinks they are grounds for a redirect). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edge cases

  • I found one reference to "Amanda Seyfried Sadoski" on Quora. However, that's without a hyphen, and I didn't see any other uses.
  • "Bridgit Mendler-Cleverly" has a use on Tumblr.
  • "Kirsten Plemons" is used on one of these celebrity bio sites, but it's only once and seems to be a mistake. I don't think this qualifies it as a plausible search term, but I could concede that.
  • "Colleen Ballinger-Stocklin" is used on one Spanish-language celebrity bio site as an "also known as".
Keep, all valid and plausible redirects. Merko (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curious – how plausible can they be if they pull up zero relevant search results? The search results I get on these are for unrelated people, or there aren't any search results at all. All they really do is create potential confusion with other people who have the same name (for example, there's an author named Angela Snyder who seems to be somewhat well-known, though she doesn't have an article or meet notability criteria) – especially so with the more common names. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Merko. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as inaccurate and potentially misleading. These are made-up names for the subjects which nobody uses, we aren't doing readers any service by pretending they're valid. "Deborah Larson", for example, is combining the target's legal first name (which she doesn't use) and her husband's last name (which she didn't adopt when she got married). Nobody calls her that. Indeed there are other Deborah Larsons who might be notable, e.g. a professor at UCLA. Hut 8.5 17:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Hut 8.5. These are all inaccurate and useless, and certainly no benefit for readers to leave 'em around. CycloneYoris talk! 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Merko or Invasive Spices care to show their work showing that they have garnered use in sources for the people in question. -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and I'm neutral on the edge cases. I don't necessarily think we need reliable sources to show attribution, any proof that people use them works. Granted, what's there is not much. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per due diligence from the OP. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 25 July 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).

Green robot

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 no consensus, retarget to Android (operating system)#Mascot per NCRET. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 19:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is redundant and there is very little probability that someone will search for Android (or its logo) as "green robot", therefore I propose this redirect for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is to retarget to Android (operating system)#Mascot. Can an admin close this discussion, please? Janhrach (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that assessment. Only 1 editor has voiced a first preference for that retarget. Most editors before and after have stated their (first) preference is to delete, including you and I, unless you've changed your mind. – Scyrme (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is apparently withdrawing their nomination. But they can't withdraw if there are participants who are still supporting their original deletion proposal. CycloneYoris talk! 16:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a stronger consensus to delete rather than a concensus to retarget -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to summarize, the arguments for deletion are:
  • Most readers would expect green (in "green robot") to mean something related to environment or being environmentally friendly, but Wikipedia doesn't have articles on green robots in this sense.
  • the fact that green-colored robots unrelated to Android exist
  • the redundancy of the redirect – This is disputed, and this tool shows the page did indeed have some views, although few.
The only argument for keeping is that some readers may still search for this term. We have agreed that if we had to retarget, we would retarget the redirect to Android (operating system)#Mascot.
Considering all the arguments (except the last one for deletion), a potential solution would be retargeting to Android (operating system)#Mascot and renaming to Green robot logo. This would satisfy the first argument for deletion by clarifying that green refers to a color. (Environment-related robots don't have a logo, do they?) The second argument would also be satisfied, as searching the Internet for "green robot" yields some results, but no well-known logo, except for the one of Android. The only argument for keeping is satisfied – the redirect would pop up in search despite renaming. As for the third argument for deletion, it is, in my opinion, weak, and no consensus can be reached on its validity in the current state of this discussion.
I have previously mentioned that redundant redirects block valuable space in search results, but this is not relevant to this redirect, so I withdraw this argument.
Janhrach (talk) 08:58, 5 August 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

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#👩‍💻

A✳️

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 Speedy delete (WP:G7). (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 20:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mix of emoji and a character in front of said emoji, not a useful redirect. Per WP:REMOJI, titles containing a mix are usually deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to have been a typo on my part when trying to create "✳️". Please delete. Thanks! Enix150 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enix150: You're welcome to G7 tag the redirect. That would allow someone to then close the discussion once the redirect has been deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 25 July 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

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#🛋️

⏫ and ⏬

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 1#⏫ and ⏬

Austria in Eurovision Choir

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. ✗plicit 12:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium in Eurovision Choir where this series of articles was deleted due to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV issues. Requesting deletion of these redirects for similar reasons; redirects originally created due to the countries in question either participating in only one edition or having intended on participating. As contest is on permanent hiatus continued existence of these redirects is not useful. Previous consensus reached for redirects related other contests (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:56, 25 July 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).

Constitutional democracy

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Constitutional democracy

Crown Colony of the Bahamas

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 retarget to History of the Bahamas. Nominally no consensus between retarget and delete, defaulting to retarget in the absence of support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to History of the Bahamas, where Colony of the Bahamas goes. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not needed, and doesn't seem to forward to actual status when Bahamas was under an actual Crown Colony form of government. I don't know the exact date(s) in it's pre indpendence years when it was a Crown Colony form of government but if someone wants some day they can create the article about when the island was under that status as a colony. Until then may as well delete. CaribDigita (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with retarget: I am perplexed. I seem to have read that redirects are cheap. Per above, "Colony of the Bahamas" redirects to "History of the Bahamas". I didn't look but if true it does not seem a stretch to me that searches for "Colony of the Bahamas" might have someone add "Crown" since it seems to be part of the history. It was mentioned that an article should be started. A good role, if for some reason it is not the intention, would be to redirect possible search terms to a relevant and/or appropriate possible parent article. If a redirect is possible, and there was some historic time when the "Crown" was involved, then there should not be a mandate to create an article with some (confusing to me) reasoning that would prevent a valid redirect. It would seem to me that any argument that an article should or could be created offers validity that the proposed redirect is appropriate. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CaribDigita and WP:REDYES. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CaribDigita. --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. It's more likely that History of the Bahamas would be improved than a new article created. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target History of the Bahamas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:24, 25 July 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).

April Gloria

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. ✗plicit 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only connection I can find for this redirect is that is the name of a "Taylor Swift lookalike" [3]. I could also see a case to Refine, but I'm not quite certain where. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:15, 25 July 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).

Narconon Day

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. ✗plicit 12:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan redirect from 2012. Redirect is not in use and there is no wiki content about this alleged day. This is NOT a Scientology holiday. Grorp (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just removed it from Narconon because it was pointing to 'no content' for it. There is no mention in Narconon about Narconon Day. Pointing it right back to the only article that ever linked to it is kind of circular. "Narconon Day" is allegedly and simply the day Narconon was created (or incorporated?) but it is not a celebration and not a holiday. Mayoral proclamations are just PR. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 25 July 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_25&oldid=1171214963"