[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paradoctor (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 27 July 2024 (→‎Sunny (upcoming TV series): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2024.

Cianwood Island

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

the island does not have a proper name. it's just "cianwood city" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cianwood City (Cianwood Island)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

are there any cianwood cities this could be mistaken for? more importantly, the island it's in isn't actually known as "cianwood island" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A trip down mammary lane

Delete. Redirect created by Neelix that was missed in the initial cleanup. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germs

Gonna go on a limb here ... the WP:PLURALPT for the plural form of the word Germ, a disambiguation page, is most likely Pathogen. The singular "germ" is difingwly ambiguous, especially considering the subjects about plant grains, but the plural seems to commonly refer to the terms use in microbiology, and Germ (microorganism) redirects to Pathogen, so ... retarget to Pathogen. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TalkSubject for further details. Seems like some attempt at policy-circumnavigating WP:SEO. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joe Biden

Not a {{R from move}}, created last month. Questionable utility ... and I thought our previous consensus about similar redirects was to delete them, but looks like WP:RDRAFT has been updated recently? We are now creating redirects from the "Draft:" namespace to the article namespace? Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny (upcoming TV series)

misleading, series was released a while ago Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless Angel

a recurring attack for sephiroth in a lot of his appearances since his debut... but also for kefka. if both appear in a playable or boss form in any given game, heartless angel tends to go to whoever pops up first, which is usually kefka. if you want to be technical, sephiroth gets it more often overall because he gets more appearances, but results seem to associate it equally with both (give or take sephiroth being mentioned more often overall). even then, heartless angel isn't mentioned in either of their articles. if not deleted, i don't know if it should be kept there or retargeted to kefka, to final fantasy#gameplay, or to recurring elements in the final fantasy series#gameplay, because it'd be hard to cram an unsourced mention (or worse, a mention with a guide as the source) into those otherwise good or featured articles cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Soooo... the move gets a "kind of" mention in Kefka's article, as "Fallen Angel", although the actual Woolsey translation rendered it in game as "Fallen One" on the SNES (as can be confirmed by looking up a playthrough on youtube). This is the move that got commentary from a reliable source, and was worth the mention in the article. Now, I believe you're probably right that it's been updated in newer versions/releases of the game to Heartless Angel, as the Final Fantasy fandom wiki uses that term, but it doesn't seem to have garnered any commentary in reliable sources. Google, on the other hand, shows overwhelming preference to linking the term with Sephiroth instead of Kefka, likely due to the relative popularity of FFVII over FFVI... except that most if not all of these hits I'm finding are not from WP:RS. Which leaves us in the awkward position where there's clear analysis that would be interesting to discuss... that we can't use because none of it has gone through editorial publishing processes. I can't decide whether that means we should delete the redirect because we don't really have information on exactly it under that name, redirect to Kefka because the thing this redirect refers to IS directly named and described there... except under a different name (which is even incorrect, despite being published in a WP:RS!), or to keep the redirect because usage online clearly prefers Sephiroth as the WP:PTOPIC even though we don't and probably can't mention it there! Fieari (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the Kefka article mentioned "Fallen Angel" as the name of the move bothered me enough that I added an endnote with the correction, and a mention to the renaming of it to Heartless Angel. Not sure if this is the best way to go about it, but surely the primary source material can be used just for a correction of this sort. Fieari (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    at this point, i'd say nuke it until a reliable source decides to cover the attack (and actually get the name right)
    also yeah, i did say results preferred sephiroth, because ff7 is the only final fantasy game people can remember the existence of for more than 15 seconds. coverage of final fantasy elements kind of sucks tbh cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the target and Kefka Palazzo pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Големата екскурзија

Redirect should be deleted. It is not in English and thus not useful for the readers here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be the Bulgarian name either so doesn't fit WP:RLANG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this event occurred in Bulgaria and concerned the Bulgarian Turks. It has nothing to do with Macedonian language. Jingiby (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabar

There are Many Disambiguation Links in the Word "Jabar" on Jabar (disambiguation). So for me this should not be special. Like the case of West Kalimantan where I made the word redirect Kalbar, but it was deleted because it was not only in one article. Baqotun0023 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Jabar (disambiguation) to Jabar. 88.235.215.238 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Măluț River

Completely unmentioned on the target page. With a bit of digging I found ro:Râul Măluț which just says "The Măluț River is a watercourse, a left tributary of the Talna River in Satu Mare County, Romania.". It's not the only tributary and nothing seems to indicate it is a particularly significant one so simply adding it to the article would seem a bit misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malut

Not sure that a variant spelling for a village with 536 inhabitants (which redirects to the commune's article) is the primary topic, given that Malut is also a commonly used shortening for North Maluku (Maluku Utara), an Indonesian province with more than a million inhabitants. Malut (disambiguation), which is currently a primary-and-one-other dab, could be moved to the base name instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon generations 5

implausible pluralization? if kept, i'll be retargeting to the gen 5 games regardless of result cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Seems plausible. Readers might see the "5" and think generation should be pluralized. Ca talk to me! 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Vilas: Settling the Score

Not sure what to do about this one. The subject exists (per third party searches) and is linked at List of Netflix original films (2020) in the list of film released that year. But ... the fact that this title is a redirect and not an article seems to validate WP:REDYES deletion. However, the subject of this redirect is mentioned twice in the biographical article about its subject, Guillermo Vilas: Once in the last paragraph of the article's top section, and once in the last paragraph of Guillermo Vilas#ATP ranking No. 1 controversy. I am not sure if either of these targets are viable retargeting options for this redirect, or if the redirect should be deleted to promote the creation of an article (though my preference here is deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steel1943: I am skeptical of the value of red links in prompting article creation. I think it's better to have a red link than no link at all, where an article can potentially be written, but better to have a redirect than a red link where the article is really unlikely to actually be written. The ultimate end question is what best serves the reader looking for information on the subject. BD2412 T 23:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Fair enough. "WP:REDLINK" Might be another guideline and/or essay excerpt that I need to add to my "questionable utility" list. I'm just ... not sure if the current setup is adequate since the subject of this redirect has article potential, and I do not believe I've seen any other cases where a redirect representing a biographical media (book, film, etc.) redirects to the human subject of the biography rather than having an article about itself or being a redirect that targets a section in another article identifying and explaining itself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are cases where it makes sense, where the subject is discrete and the likely topic of a writeable article, and cases where a redirect is more defensible. BD2412 T 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: To clarify on this, my stance is delete and weak retarget to Guillermo Vilas since "keep" is definitely invalid. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 25 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! 07:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fax (hair)" and "Fax (head hair)"

The word "fax" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer to and/or define. The only other article on Wikipedia I can find that mentions such terms in context is John the Baptist, but with the way the term "fax" is used in that article pertaining to "hair", it makes it seem as though these nominated redirects are some sort of suffix. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added an etymology section to the page on Hair so it is now in the target article. Fax is attestated in modern English, not only Middle English, even if its usage has since become rare. Ingwina (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, my stance (I am the nominator) is changing to retarget Fax (hair) to Hair#Etymology but still delete Fax (head hair) since the "Etymology" section does not specify anything about "head" or "head hair". Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is from the page "The now broadly obsolete word "fax" refers specifically to head hair".
    I feel like if fax means hair, the word should redirect to the whole page - is there precedent for redirecting to the specific section mentioning the word if the word refers to the wider article? I don't have too strong views about this bit though - it just depends on the nuance of wikipedia policy to me! Ingwina (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingwina: The reason why I'm suggesting for at least Fax (hair) to target Hair#Etymology is the section directly exposing what "fax" means in the context of the subject of the article. In this case, keeping the target as Hair with no section redirect would be if the word was immediately established to be an alternative used in present day, which it seems this word may not be. Either way, that section seems to best explain why this term redirects to any part of the Hair article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure :) I'm very relaxed about it. Worst comes to worst they scroll up. I don't think it's a big problem! Ingwina (talk) 20:22, 23 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! 07:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Olympics

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 withdrawn. Because recentism is okay now. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear and obvious case of recentism. It should be disambiguated to also link to the 1900 and 1924 Olympics. See also pages like Los Angeles Olympics. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: leave it (and Paris Olympic Games) until at least the end of the Olympics. It is obviously the primary topic at the moment and has received nearly 25 000 page views in the past 30 days. There is a hatnote at the top of 2024 Summer Olympics for the few people who want the previous events. Disambiguating, and even listing it here in the first place, is making this unnecessairly complicated for readers trying to get to the page. At the end of the day, we just need to remove the deletion notice, and as soon as possible. C F A 💬 03:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2024_July_27&oldid=1237031183"