Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 22

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2021.

Draft:Iracq

[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. G5'd - Created by a sock 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advised to take this here instead of WP:MfD. In my opinion, this misspelling of 'Iraq' is not common enough to be a worthwhile redirect. People searching this may actually be expecting articles relating to 'IRACQ [Increased Range ACQuisition]'. I propose outright deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are Iracq and/or IRACQ suitable redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to IRACQ but no to Iracq. This is such a rare misspelling I don't think it would be useful. The vast majority of results apparently showing this misspelling are actually Google scannos. Redirects from misspellings can actually do more harm than good (misleading the reader into thinking the spelling they used was correct) and should only be used when they are common and a strong chance they will be used. IRACQ is a different question, it is a real thing and we already have a target. It also has other uses and may eventually become a disambiguation page. This has it as an acronym in artificial intelligence and the company involved already has an article here. SpinningSpark 13:01, 23 August 2021 (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.

Raja Ror I

[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. The content has been removed again. Just don't put the cart before the horse, and make sure there's coverage of these topics before thinking about restoring the redirects. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the article. First, Raja Khangar was redirected to Raja Ror I by Onel5969 (talk · contribs) in June 2018 as a WP:COATRACK article whose ostensible subject failed WP:GNG. Then Мастер Шторм (talk · contribs) essentially blanked Raja Ror I in October 2020 because it was cited entirely to unreliable British Raj-era sources (WP:RSCASTE) — Pontificalibus (talk · contribs) redirected it the following day because of lack of content. Today, I removed all the historical content at the target, including references to Raja Ror I, for the same reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 157.36.10.245 has added a single sourced sentence on each.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2021 (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.

Brooder

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Brooder

Wikipedia:666

[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 00:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a task force that has been inactive since at least 2009, if not earlier. Created a month ago for unclear purposes. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (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.

A Young Man Dressed as a Gorilla Dressed as an Old Man Sits Rocking in a Rocking Chair for 56 Minutes and Then Leaves

[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. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless due to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.whatsonstage.com/edinburgh-theatre/news/10-weirdest-edinburgh-fringe-show-names_41388.html — it's the name of a semi-popular show performed at the Fringe, which didn't have enough coverage to merit its own article, which is why I added it as a redirect. Yitz (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the link from the edit summary, but unless there's information about it at the target it is more likely to just confuse readers than help them. signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 23 August 2021 (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.

Kang Hye-won

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 2#Kang Hye-won

Naomi Higgins

[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 Reverted to article. Purposely bypassing AFC is not against policy, even if that was true. AFC is not a compulsory process. What is against guidelines is creating this kind of cross-namespace redirect. The editors involved should decide themselves what, if anything or everything, should be merged from the draft. SpinningSpark 13:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to the draft namespace, so it should be deleted per WP:R2, but there is a lot of text in old revisions of the page, and I'm not sure what to do with that. Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. Why should an article redirect to a draft? I don't think the reason for redirecting AfC was purposely bypassed given by The Grid was valid. Both the redirect and target articles evolved independently. Jay (Talk) 17:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay: I want to assume good faith but the draft and article were made hours within each other. An CSD under A10 by Hatchens was denied for the same reasons as stated on Talk:Naomi Higgins. – The Grid (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So did you do the redirect assuming that the AfC was purposely bypassed? And why to a draft? Jay (Talk) 07:18, 23 August 2021 (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.

Brack Lives Matter

[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. G5'd - Created by a sock 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching suggests that this is basically never an actual error; Google results seem to mainly be auto-translation errors. Borderline R3 as it was created today, but taking this here out of caution. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 22 August 2021 (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.

The Midwestern States (2nd way to split it)

[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 12:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be a plausible search term Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This redirect, although it's been around since 2005, doesn't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays or be a very reliable search term. There are many ways to define which U.S. states are of which part of this region, so this second way is pretty ambiguous. Regards, SONIC678 02:48, 23 August 2021 (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.

The original picante sauce

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#The original picante sauce

X-wing violence

[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 Political violence. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 06:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Violence ≠ Terrorism (pedantically, Terrorism ⊆ Violence, maybe). Redirect both to Political violence. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to political violence. The current target article topics are very narrowly defined, so would exclude most left and right wing violence. It does not include for example state terrorism or violence that does not reach the level of terrorism. OTOH, all the sources I saw that referred to left and right wing violence used it as a synonym for left and right terrorism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget: although I created the left-wing redirect, I agree with this one too.

  • Comment - The suggested target, Political violence, doesn't mention left or right wing at all, let alone left or right wing violence (the only use of the word "left" is in the further reading section, and of "right" is referring to "rights" and nothing to do with the right wing) so I'm not really convinced that is a suitable target. A7V2 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't explicitly cover it by name, but by definition left/right-wing violence is political violence. Until someone writes an article about the left or right wing's use of violence, we have a choice between targeting to a more precise or more general topic, and I think that general is the way to go rather than potentially falsely imply to a reader that left or right wing violence is limited to terrorism. signed, Rosguill talk 02:57, 29 August 2021 (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.

Ish (slang)

[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 12:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 22 August 2021 (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.

South African restaurants

[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 12:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these restaurants are mentioned at the target. In order to merit inclusion at the target, they would need to have an article, in which case these redirects should point at that article, not at the list, so they should be deleted. N.b. that some of these restaurant names are quite generic and exist in locations other than South Africa (e.g. Doppio Zero) signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 22 August 2021 (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.

I didn't inhale

[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 1992 United States presidential election#Character issues. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Probably not useful as a redirect anyway, given that someone searching this up would presumably know it was Bill Clinton who said it - and someone who didn't wouldn't be well-served as currently there is no context as to why this redirects there. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 22 August 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:TR

[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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other reasonable and useful targets for this redirect than an essay that is still in user space. I was looking for WP:RM/TR, but other plausible targets exist as multiple hatnotes. Retarget or disambiguate. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 22 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_22&oldid=1042030985"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy