Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

April 28

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2022.

List of countries in 2006

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 List of sovereign states in the 2000s. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is both unused and inaccurate. This list includes South Sudan, for example, which it did not include in 2006. (I know that other pages like this exist, but before doing a mass nomination I first wanted to try to see what consensus would be on one.) TartarTorte 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flags of municipalities of Estonia

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Flags of municipalities of Estonia

Mario draghi

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: unneded redirect, capitalization is already accounted for -- BouncyCactus (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also   Urgent: the page being about an internationally recognised politician and this particular redirect after the nomination creates a disruption of service, as almost all users search for names ignoring capitalization and this redirect hijacks the default page. BouncyCactus (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does no harm (and if it is this urgent, "speedy keep"). Fram (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Disagree unnecessarily bloats the search bar, as it gives two results when searching for "mario draghi". It's not a precedent to be set. BouncyCactus (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
? When I search for "Hillary clinton", I only get Hillary Clinton in the search bar, despite the existence of Hillary clinton. Cristiano ronaldo exists, but it doesn't clutter the search box either. Johnny cash, same. Perhaps - {{R from other capitalisation}} simply needed to be added? In any case, no precedent is set by this redirect as we have countless similar ones already, without any issues. Fram (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok it worked, it was the missing template that was the culprit. thanks for your help :) BouncyCactus (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
however I think the template to be used is {{R from miscapitalisation}} BouncyCactus (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was directed here by a user who deleted my page nomination. Maybe, in order not to give additional work here, I could simply nominate the page for speedy deletion as WP:R3 BouncyCactus (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please no. It is not an unlikely typo, and your regular deletion nom is already objected to so a speedy would be a bad idea. Fram (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn BouncyCactus (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ukrainian Genocide

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Ukrainian Genocide

County Championship Division Two Current Table

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#County Championship Division Two Current Table

Trumpanzee

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 11:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSRT, no need to redirect this derogatory neologism. Fram (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Trumpanzees of course. Fram (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect. There's a valid target and there's no encyclopedic value here, so it meets WP:SOFTREDIRECT and WP:SISP. (See also wikt:WT:RFV. It passes wikt:WT:ATTEST with these uses.) Enix150 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SSRT is part of WP:SISP and makes it clear that in most cases, we don't want or need a soft redirect. The wiktionary links you provide are not relevant, I'm not asking for deletion of the page on Wiktionary, I'm asking that "Trumpanzee" and "Trumpanzees" would not be a bluelink on enwiki as there is indeed no encyclopedic value here. Fram (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphasis mine). "Trumpanzee" is not a commonly wikified word and it does not appear to have been repeatedly recreated from its page log, so the guideline suggests that the soft redirect is inappropriate in this case. I see no encyclopedic use of this term here, so there's no appropriate hard redirect either. As such, deletion is the best option. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mhawk10. Veverve (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mhawk10 --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per strong argument by Mhawk10. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Project Prometheus (Smallville)

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 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there's still information about Smallville at the target, there's absolutely no mention of any "Project Prometheus". CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Okay, in this diff, I removed the information that would have justified this redirect, and put it in Kryptonite. Looking at the appropriate section of that article, what I added appears too detailed to have been kept. You can look at what I removed and why, and from there figure out if it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canturbury West) line

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. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealistic typo for "Canterbury" in this context. This can't be speeded as WP:R3 as it's been around for 15 years, so a discussion is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir Ottavio Missoni

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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. Unlikely search/redirect term, especially as Ottavio Missoni's main article has nothing about him having a title. Mabalu (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are several online sources that refer to the subject of the article with a title in front of the name, and I could see someone typing Sir Ottavio Missoni. Noah 💬 17:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Minor characters associated with quidditch

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 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following years of mergers, redirects and reorginisations this redirect has been reduced to essentially nonsense. The content it is supposed to be targeting does not seem to exist anywhere. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blue Friday

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 19:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected page does not mention Blue Friday at all.  cjquines  (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WP:B

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15#WP:B

Pink kar

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 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled term not mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flag of Jammu and Kashmir (1952–2021)

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 11:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag was abolished in 2019 not 2021. Peter Ormond 💬 06:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Radioactive material

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 Radionuclide. ✗plicit 11:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two nearly identical redirects with different targets. Which is better? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radionuclide is better. Radioactive decay is the process. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radionuclide for the same reason as Headbomb. PianoDan (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the choice is restricted to these two, then I agree that Radionuclide (as a substance) is better than Radioactive decay (as a process). However the term radioactive material also means any material enriched in radioactive elements or isotopes, so I would suggest a third option: point the redirect to Naturally occurring radioactive material. Ideally the redirect target should include anthropogenic radioactive material also. Dirac66 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds to me like an argument FOR pointing it to radionuclide. Naturally occurring radioactive material doesn't include man-made isotopes, and I agree they SHOULD be included. So why not point the redirect at the more general term? PianoDan (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Radionuclide per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seem

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 move SEEM over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This currently redirects to the disambiguation page, SEEM, which I have just PRODed because the two red links on the page are both acronyms of PROD-deleted article subjects. However, "seem" obviously has its own non-acronym meaning, so I am thinking that this could point somewhere else. I am just not sure where. BD2412 T 01:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mississippi flood & Mississippi flooded

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Mississippi flood & Mississippi flooded

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28&oldid=1087887813"