Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 19

August 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2024.

Linden Hill Cemetery

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 💬 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Hill Cemetery → List of Jewish cemeteries in New York City (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as an ambiguous redirect. Could also refer to the adjacent United Methodist cemetery. See here. Johnj1995 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:40, 27 August 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).

Scotchka

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 23:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scotchka → The Room (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"two parts scotch, two parts vodka", results say. took me longer to find that out and why it was related to the room than i believe it should take to warrant an {{r from meme}}, and it's not mentioned in the target either. it's also apparently the name of some amateur band which may itself be referencing the room, but it's... really not notable cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hai, Mark. Delete of course, not mentioned. I believe this was a joke from the oooold Cinemasins video about this, which makes this kind of silly to boot. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 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).

Sokovia Accords

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 Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Sokovia Accords. ^Complex/_Rational 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokovia Accords → Superhero fiction#Discrimination against superheroes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Discrimination against superheroes is no longer an article, and now redirects elsewhere, where the Sokovia Accords are not mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Sokovia Accords where the most relevant information of this subject is provided. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Trailblazer101. Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Trailblazer101 --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Thanks guys for ponting this out. Please retarget it once this RfD closes. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 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).

Bīn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27#Bīn

double bind-shaped dilemmas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27#double bind-shaped dilemmas

Doom in other media

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 14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doom in other media → Doctor Doom#In other media (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

like with "beast in other media" nominated ages ago, this requires specific definitions of common words and of "other media" relative to those common words. could refer to the video game franchise of the same name and the first game's however many ports for all i know cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both ambiguous and vague. I would definitely have expected a target related to the video game franchise but other targets are equally possible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per above. Besides, Doctor Doom in other media has an article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correct. on the improbable case of a keep, i'd have retargeted it there anyway cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I first thought of MF Doom and Doom (franchise), not Doctor Doom. Too ambiguous to keep, too niche to disambig, so delete BugGhost 🦗👻 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 21 August 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).

M-Block

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26#M-Block

Medical coding

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 target both to Medical classification. Participants agreed that there is more work to be done on medical classification, and a possible renaming as well, hence no prejudice against a renomination when that happens. Also Disclosure as closer: I participated in the discussion, not to provide an opinion, but to check with voorts whose vote was inconsistent. Jay 💬 12:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical coding → Medical classification (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clinical coding → Clinical coder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Medical and clinical coding are terms for the same thing. Of note; I boldly changed the medical coding redirect to match that of clinical coding in 2019. It was manually reverted to the previous, and now current, target in Aug 2023. I'm of the opinion that pointing the process (i.e. coding) to the profession (coder) is what a reader would expect rather than the tools used (classification), but they should at least have the same target. Little pob (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget clinical coding to medical classification per nom. Keep medical coding as is. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "per nom", what you suggested is the opposite of the nomination. Jay 💬 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree that they should point to the same place. I tend to think that medical classification is basically a synonym, and thus a better target. That article is a bit of a mess though, it seems to be discussing several different things. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I hadn't recognised that classification has (at least) two definitions here:
1. The classifying of medical terms through the system of coding - seemingly the approach of the respondents so far
2. The tools used by the coders - my sole interpretation until now
I don't think either view point is wrong. If closer sees no consensus, perhaps a temporary DAB page with tracking could be considered? (I think such a process exists but not how to set up, nor the proper terminology to even be able to look for help on doing so (assuming non-sysop editors like myself would even be able to set such a thing up).)

I agree that classification needs work. In fact the whole topic area needs looking at. It had been a long term project of mine, and possibly might still get round to it, but I'm much more of a wikignome than a wikifairy. Little pob (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the redirect from Clinical coding to Clinical coder I wasn't aware of the Medical coding redirect. That's because most countries have moved their terminology to the broader term and my own country never used the term. (I started as a medical statistics clerk and after a while the position was renamed as a clinical coder.) I agree that the two terms are synonymous and should redirect to the same place. Clinical/Medical coding is what a clinical coder does, while medical classification is a broader topic which includes the clinical classifications used and the tools utilised to implement the classifications in the field as well as the end uses of the data produced. My personal preference would be to see Medical classification rewritten and moved to Clinical classification. The justification for this is that the classifications covered in the article are broader than the "medical" domain and by using the term "clinical" we can encompass nursing, vetinary, severity, pharmacological, and allied health classifications. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that these should both be directed to the same destination. I note above there are plans to do further work on articles about clinical coding. In the meantime I think medical classification is the best currently available destination. Mgp28 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist. I've tagged both redirects since they weren't tagged by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 19 August 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).

Cock destroyers

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 per author request. ✗plicit 14:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cock destroyers → Rebecca More (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Cock Destroyers and Cock Destroyers were deleted in January, same rationale applies. Laun chba ller 09:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No disagreement from me. (I created this redirect originally.) FWDekker (talk) 10:00, 19 August 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).

Nazi resistance

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26#Nazi resistance