Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2021.

Eductor-jet pump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Eductor-jet pump

Fragilité[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 disambiguate using Uanfala's draft. There's a consensus that the current redirect is not particularly useful, and while no strong consensus has developed as to whether the ballet is worth considering as a primary topic, the disambiguation page as drafted seems to be a solid improvement on the status quo. ~ mazca talk 09:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of this redirect is inappropriate per WP:FORRED as there is no connection between the concept of brittleness and the French language. We do however have an article on a ballet with the same name Fragilité (ballet). I think this redirect should either be retargeted to point at the ballet, or maybe it should be deleted and the article moved to the non-disambiguated name? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the ballet, a wiktionary link, "Fragilité" (Op.51 No.1) listed at List of compositions by Alexander Scriabin, "Fragiliteé" (1965 short) by Nadine Trintignant, "Fragilités" (2008 exhibition) by Lili Dujourie, "Fragilités" (2002 exhibition) by Luc Delahaye; and a see also to Fragility (disambiguation) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per 67.70.27.246: I don't see a primary topic: the ballet looks pretty obscure, and it's based on the Scriabin composition of the same name anyway. I've put a short draft below the redirect. I haven't included either of the two exhibitions: they both appear as mere mentions within excessively long lists: they contain no information beyond what the dab page description will already have, and – judging by the maintenance templates placed there – the list entries themselves may be liable to trimming away; both are titled Fragilités, so will be accessible from the search anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the 67 IP and Uanfala, draft looks pretty neat to me. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 22 April 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.

SiO2 Group[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. There's clearly some level of logic to the existence of this redirect, but the overall participation seems to lack any real enthusiasm to keep it at all, as it does seem to be fairly vague and ambiguous. ~ mazca talk 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would probably be better as a redirect to Silicon dioxide, but I'm struggling to find many sources using this name, so I'm listing it here for discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I believe this redirect is referring to SiO2 as part of the mineral crystal structure, as in a silicate mineral, but only the quartz family (see Silicate_mineral#Tectosilicates) of minerals has the SiO2 stoichiometry. I would say retarget to that section, but if Quartz group or Quartz family aren't even redirects, I'm hesitant to pin this redirect on that. None of the other mineral-forming oxides have analogous redirects, so I think deletion here to avoid confusion might be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this redirect 15 years ago, and I was notified that it was brought here. I have no strong opinion, and I am unsure of why I created this redirect, which might be related to why it ended up here. I think that the term refers to quartz, tridymite, opal and other such minerals that have a SiO2 composition, but that form different structures, as already surmised above. I think that Mdewman6, and others are better informed to make a decision on this. If similar things do not have articles of their own, and there is no benefit to an article, then I would lean towards delete. However, perhaps a dictionary definition should be created and then moved to Wiktionary. If that is done, then perhaps "Quartz group" and "Quartz family" should be redirected to the same definition. However, if group or family is a more common term than SiO2 group, then I think that it should get the name and then the others should redirect to it, with the other terms given as alternative names in the Wiktionary entry. After writing the preceding, I found that quartz group and family seem to refer to quartz gemstones rather than what was previously discussed. -- Kjkolb (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus between deletion and retargeting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There hasn't been any further discussion, but "group" could refer to the crystallographic space group (see list of space groups) for the various polymorphs of SiO2, listed at Silicon_dioxide#Crystalline_forms. If there is a desire to keep this redirect, targeting that section would seem best, though I still think deletion is probably better given the ambiguity of the term as discussed above. Furthermore, of course SiO2 already redirects to silicon dioxide, so this redirect would have limited utility, and is probably unhelpful if targeted to the lead of silicon dioxide rather than a specific section. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 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.

Soroka[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. There's consensus that Soroka should not redirect to Mike Soroka but should instead to a dab or surname page. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mike Soroka, with its higher page-views and general notability, should become the new target and primary topic of this redirect, notwithstanding the location where Soroko (surname) might end up. This RfD should be read in conjunction with Talk:Soroko (surname)#Requested move 6 April 2021 that I made. Also, as I have said below with User:Ost316, even if you type "Soroka -injury" without quotes, eliminating the injury news, Soroka still comes out top. Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC), edited on 21:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC) and 02:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate there are several places like Commons:Category:Soroka, Vinnytsia Oblast. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted but low notability in relation to Mike (or the surname page for that matter). One disambiguated item in the future home of Soroko (surname) (for example, "Several places in Ukraine"), achieves the same effect. Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Soroka → Soroka (surname), pending outcome of RM. While Mike Soroka gets the most hits on that page, I believe his notability falls short of a redirect. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google's 1st-page search results for "Soroka" are all Mike-related; last week Mike's article got 3.4K page views versus around 100 for Soroko (surname). Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Notwithstanding a recent jump because baseball season just started, Mike Soroka averaged around 100 hits/day. If you figure that each of the other 10 Sorokas on the dab page get around 10 hits/day, you can see that it is not much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • All other Sorokas (i.e. Mike not included), when added together, only got 562 page views in the past week (see [1]) Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have to also consider both longterm significance and whether a person is recognisable solely by their surname to be a primary topic. No point creating one based on page hits from the last year that no longer gets the hits in another year or two (or maybe even five in this case) because the guy has retired or isn't an all-star any more. Hemingway is a primary topic and so is Picasso. If Mike Soroka is who my mother thinks of when you say "Soroka" in ten years time then he's the primary topic. Hard to make that decision today, but my guess would be no. Lithopsian (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that we can still move it to Mike for now despite the above. If he ever wanes in notability, we can change it back later. It is not set in stone. DePlume (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit. You added several items that were not people to an article called Soroko (surname) which is a set index list of people with the surname Soroko and (pending the result of discussions) variants including Soroka. One of them was indeed Soroca, which is a city and doesn't belong in a set index about people with a particular surname. Lithopsian (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll say it again, avoid making "breaking" changes to articles that are subject to discussion. It confuses people trying to get involved in the discussion because reality doesn't match what people are reading or writing at a particular time, it may make it difficult to implement consensus formed by the discussion, and it gives the impression of bad faith by pre-supposing the outcome of the discussion even if only in small part. There is nothing here that can't wait a few days and then be done properly and cleanly with the agreement and help of everyone. Lithopsian (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian: I am sorry for my presupposition. However, in one part, I wanted to respond to User:Crouch, Swale's (valid) argument regarding places named "Soroka". Also, seeing that someone else created Soroko (disambiguation) and listed people surnamed Sorok(k)o there, I figured that it would be redundant to list them twice. Moreover, would you please take a look at the message I left at the move request? It is getting confusing to have Soroko (surname) be about Sorokas while Soroko (disambiguation) is all about Sorokoes. Thank you, DePlume (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, making significant changes in the middle of (multiple!) discussions does nobody any favours. Having all the discussions going on in different places and people making random changes when nothing has been decided runs the risk of a sort of WP:TRAINWRECK. At the very least, I don't see any imminent prospect of a consensus that could be implemented. Lithopsian (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change or Dab: I think the best option is to keep Soroka pointing to a surname page or a disambiguation page. The Google results and some recent spikes in pageviews are recent developments that don't indicate most people would be looking for this baseball player. Yes, he appears in a number of the first Google results and his page has received more hits, but those results are news articles about a recent injury news and may be biasing the results with recentism. I don't think that it is an undue burden for people to select this individual from the list at Soroko (surname), nor has anyone shown here that he is commonly only known by his last name; the google headlines mention "Mike Soroka", except for New throwing event named in Soroka's honor, which is my top result and about a track and field coach. —Ost (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ost316: Even if you type "Soroka -injury" (without quotes) into Google (eliminating the injury news and recentisms), Mike still dominates the results. In fact, one result there is "What to expect from Soroka in 2020" from a baseball site (note the lack of "Mike"). Thank you for your time, NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NotReallySoroka: It is hard to deny that Bing and Google appear to agree with you that people currently searching for Soroka want to know about Mike Soroka. Duckduckgo is much less conclusive, especially with the "-injury" part added; a Google NGram search is also less than convincing, due to how far back the term is used. As such, I still feel this may be the case in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where "[a] topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people", but I could understand why others disagree. —Ost (talk) 01:40, 14 April 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.

Kinnies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#Kinnies

Postmodern conservatism[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 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, and a Google Scholar search suggests that these terms are not interchangeable. "Postmodern conservatism" appears to likely be notable in its own right, or a least meriting a section in Postmodernism, but until such content is written I don't think the redirect is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this, a general google search under "postmodern conservatism" + populism would appear to provide support and a Google scholar search seems to only reinforce this view from what I can see. Note also the 2020 Palgrave Macmillan title The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, published as part of the Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, explicitly connects the two. This is not a case of recentism either, you'll note that academic publications revealed in the GS returns have used the term for some time now, but the context for usage here relates to the rise of nationalism & righ-wing populism post 2008, the recession being a catalyst for a global shift that led to a wave of populism that was exploited by conservative parties in a number of countries. Acousmana 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that while post-modern conservatism and populism are clearly linked, the target article doesn't explain this at all. If post-modern conservatism was just an alternative name for right-wing populism or otherwise reducible to it, then these redirects would be appropriate, but the search results suggest to me that the phenomena, while related, are not synonymous. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rosguill that these might not be appropriate redirects and I support deletion of the redirects. There is a history of the use of the term that predates the 2018 book, especially within conservative circles. A 2014 National Review article by Peter Augustine Lawler traces the origin of the thought of "postmodern conservatism" to a 1999 book, which was written by the article's author. The article says that the term was not coined until later. That being said, the article also articulates a particular formulation of "postmodern conservatism", namely that To be postmodern means to be about conserving what’s true and good about the modern world, as well sustaining or restoring what’s true and good about various premodern forms of thought and life. It is also, as Solzhenitsyn explained, about criticizing the modern world for its excessive materialism and its replacement of God and virtue with legalism, and the medieval world for its excessively single-minded focus on spiritual life or the soul at the expense of the body. This doesn't really seem like an articulation of "right-wing populism" as it is commonly understood. And, it's not just Lawler who credits himself with birthing the philosophy; the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute also notes Lawler's philosophy as one of "postmodern conservatism". As an opinion piece published in The Week shortly following Lawler's death in 2017 described well, Lawler's philosophy (one of a postmodern conservative) is provides for an ideological counter to right-wing populism. It's not clear to me that the redirect is appropriate given the breadth of the term's use and the close association of the term with the philosophy articulated chiefly by Peter Lawler. If we choose to keep the redirect, it might actually be more appropriate to retarget the redirects to the individual's biography article rather than to leave the redirects targeting the right-wing populism pages, given Lawler's outsized influence on the philosophy and the history of the term. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: indeed the terms are not interchangeable, and it's not clear what part of the target is about the topic. No prejudice against recreation as an article. — Bilorv (talk) 23:06, 11 April 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.

Râbnița,[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect includes unnecessary comma in the title. I clarify that Râbnița is an alternative name for Rîbnița, so it would be like having "London," as a redirect to London. Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 7 April 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.

Main shock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#Main shock

Globe (Earth)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Globe (Earth)

Conspirationism[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 02:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be either a modified form of the french word meaning "conspiracy" that the redirect creator has been trying to add to the article lead for some reason, which would fall afoul of WP:FORRED, or it's an "ionism" word that the redirect creator has invented. Google turns up a tiny number of results using this word in a context to mean conspiracy theory, almost all of which are user generated content. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yes, this is just a bizarre Neologism, that seems to be a portmanteau of both French and English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It begins to look like "Urbandictionaryionism", trying to use Wikipedia as a kind of Urban dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied below, but yes, someone from turkey has spent the last 3 years inventing these words and adding them to various articles and wikisites. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many are there, this is ridiculous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's 3 or 4 more redirects from this account, but someone's been doing the same rubbish on other wikis, e.g. this IP edit from turkey which added the same made up word to the simple English wiki, and this Turkish IP that's been making unsourced Wiktionary entries for the same words. The username of the person who made these redirects translates to "Down with Isolationism" so it might be some Turkish political group from somewhere making these. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at all the conspiracy theory articles that have been vandalised by this Turkish IP https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=176.233.70.255. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conspiracism does refer to the quality or worldview of believing and/or disseminating conspiracy theories. There are many results on Google Scholar, such as [2] [3] [4] it is also used in this sense in Wiki articles such as anti-gender movement. (t · c) buidhe 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This may be a "broken clock right twice a day" situation as far as the creator's redirects are concerned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suggest deleting conspirationism and all of this editor's other conspiracy article-related vandalism strewn about multiple Wikisites. Conspirationism is a non-notable, rarely or idiosyncratically-used neologism. (Conspiracism seems to be a plausibly "real" word, as buidhe mentions, but that isn't what this article is about, or titled.)--FeralOink (talk) 09:07, 14 April 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.

Rocketbook[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketbook is also a brand of reusable notebooks – probably not notable enough for its own article, but this redirect is still incorrect. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that something else somewhere exists with the same name is not relevant, the dab is useful and has existed since 2007. We don't delete redirects on the premise that it may some day be notable, or never notable. It is perfectly reasonable that a reader would type in Rocketbook and expect to see Rocket eBook. VAXIDICAE💉 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also think it's misleading. If there's no article about the reusable notebooks, why should we direct people who might have looked for them to an article about the early e-book that is not even produced now? Less Unless (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there's one use that is notable and another that isn't, it can be a redirect to the notable use. Peter James (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Disambiguate: There may be an opportunity for someone to create articles on reusable notebooks, Rocketbook (company), or Rocketbook (notebook), but as they currently do not exist, the current target is reasonable; sources on Rocket eBook demonstrate that it is associated with the term Rocketbook. However, it may be worth disambiguating, with a {{redirect}} hatnote or transforming into a dab page (if neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If linked, I suggest mentioning Rocketbook at Société Bic#Products and targeting that section, as the reusable notebook company Rocketbook appears to have been an acquisition ([5]). I believe the parent company to be a better target than either of the only current mentions, which are at Shark Tank (season 8) and perhaps Steve Emerson (visual effects artist)—if the Rocketbook, LLC mentioned on the back of the "Rocketbook Presents" DVDs ([6]) is that same as the notebook company. —Ost (talk) 22:06, 7 April 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.

ㅿ[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 Hangul#Traditional account. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even mentioned at target, and apparently the only Hangul character not redirecting to the Hangul article (where this is mentioned in the lead). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill The suggested outcome seems to have already been implemented per above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1234qwer1234qwer4, it wasn't clear to me that you agreed with this change. If you're fine with it then this discussion can be closed. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill My initial nomination suggested a retarget to Hangul; the current target is now just a section of the article. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:36, 11 April 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.

Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law[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 Canon law. Borderline WP:NCRET, but there's no way this is heading towards a delete. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name too broad which links to an article explaining Roman Catholic philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of Roman Catholic canon law, not to a page where the philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of all canon laws are discussed (i.e. in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, the Early Church, etc.). There is no page which cover the subject this redirect is designating. Also, this redirect is unused in the main space. Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is an R from move of an article which stood at this title for almost five years until two months ago. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from move}}, deletion will break links from outside Wikipedia for too little gain. Disambiguate once other articles that this title could refer to actually exist. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 12:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to canon law. Current target is too narrow, and deletion isn't viable, given the high likelihood of external linking. There's no real good place to point this, but we need to keep this around somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Canon law per Hog Farm; this title existed for too long to make deletion a good plan, there are almost certainly external links and mirrors. But the current redirect is indeed to too specific an article, so depositing a hypothetical reader at the general article will allow them to hopefully find what they're actually looking for. ~ mazca talk 09:49, 22 April 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.

Cannibalistic tree[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 02:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. The target discusses carnivorous trees, but no canniablistic trees - the trees discussed do not eat other trees, and are thus not cannibals. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's an incorrect use, but common for people to colloquially use 'cannibalism' to refer to anthropophagy regardless of the species, enough so that I can envision this being a popular redirect. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards delete. I would expect a cannibalistic tree to be a tree that consumes other trees. If someone can find sources using the phrase "cannibalistic tree" to refer to this concept, that might change my mind. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this is not an attested term for this concept then it should be removed as misleading. One of the sources, from the late 1800, does seem to be titled "A Cannibal Plant", but that's a specific term that is quite different from the form "Cannibalistic tree". Googling around the topic turns up a song called "Cannibal Tree", which is closer, but it's not currently attested on Wikipedia. Delete for now because there's no specific target for the term and it's incorrect as a description (the tree does not eat other trees). BlackholeWA (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are trees that consume other trees, parasitic trees the drain the life out of other trees, and then replace the rotting trunk that is left over with their own trunk; though they don't seem to do that to their own species. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of the term being used or linked to, and as it's an incorrect target if read literally that's enough of a reason to delete. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 11 April 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 Home of Football Stadium[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 Sheffield F.C.. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to Dronfield (the geographic location) or Sheffield F.C., whose ground it is? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sheffield F.C.: there's more info about the stadium at the club article Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Official Website seems to be talking about a stadium yet to be built on land called "The Transport Ground" which is currently a sports and athletic club. This news article seems to be describing as not yet even having planning permission approved. They are currently describing the Coach & Horses Pub stadium under the Home of Football Stadium moniker (which is why it is diverted to Dronfield). However I am not sure why this actually even exists as a redirect. It seems unlikely anyone will actually search for "The home of football stadium" just to find Sheffield FC, and appears to be little more than an extension of this discussion and a means of wedging the stadium onto the DAB page in the first place. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect to Sheffield F.C.: It makes no sense to redirect to Dronfield#Sport and leisure as the proposed stadium is going to be in Sheffield, if it is ever built. See the link to the club's website above. If the new stadium is ever notable the it might be considered for an article. As of April 2021 the Home of Football Stadium does not exist.

2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:D55C:7D87:84DF:489D (talk) 13:01, 7 April 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.

Tetartagonist[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 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no mention in the target article. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the person who changed it to a redirect noted, it isn't even a word. Even if someone wanted to denote the fourth most significant character in a story, as the original article stated, "tetart" isn't the prefix for it. It could have been deleted speedily as a hoax or a word coined by the contributor. Probability that somebody would search for that term × probability that somebody looking for it would spell it like that = virtually 0, and then the target article doesn't mention it anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I try really hard not to write without checking my facts but I failed this time. "Tetarto-" is indeed the prefix for "fourth" that corresponds to "proto-" and "deutero-". Still, while I see some uses of it, essentially on fan sites and fan wikis where people are ranking characters in what, by the time we get to number 4, I suspect is their personal ordering. In any event, it isn't encyclopedic for purposes of determining whether it should have its own article (it's like having an article on Sixth associate producer), and the target article doesn't mention it so the redirect isn't helpful. So, still, delete. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have been speedied per A11, or failing that WP:PROD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: notwithstanding its incorrect nature, this term isn't made up by the creator and as far as I can tell is the most used term for the fourth most significant character in a story. The redirect has received ample pageviews, most likely indicating that the term is searched up frequently. It's definitely a plausible search term, but I can't find a good target for this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it looks like it is correct after all as the Greek ordinal prefix for 4. There's still some confusion; these aren't the tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- cardinal Greek prefixes but rather the ordinal trit-, tetart-, pempt-, hect-, hebdom- prefixes. The correct terms for further -agonist s are pemptagonist, hectagonist, hebdomtagonist, ogdootagonist, etc. (or at least, I hope that they are). I doubt that it can be done, but add a mention to the tetartagonist if some sort of reliable source supports it. If no mention is there, I'm tempted to keep the redirect anyway as it directs readers to article content about the three major -agonist s. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the term has no notability and little use outside of fan fiction, it seems that people are likely to look it up, and having it redirect to "protagonist" seems useful, since it'll take readers to the best article to explain what it means (it wouldn't hurt to mention the term there; it already mentions "deuteragonists" and "tritagonists"). I looked to see if there were "pentagonists", "hexagonists", "heptagonists", "octagonists", "nonagonists", or "decagonists", but a cursory glance at Google results suggests that these are mostly theoretical, and not actually used in this sense (although people have assumed them as social media handles), and people seem to confuse Greek and Latin prefixes, resulting in macaronic, but little-used terms like "quintagonist", "sextagonist", and "septagonist" ("tetragonist" doesn't immediately produce results, probably due to our redirects mirroring; the others would be the same in both Latin and Greek). Which is not to say that they shouldn't redirect to "protagonist"—they seem harmless and potentially useful. Maybe they could be footnoted there. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word has been in use for 40+ years. [7]. Maybe retarget / slight merge to tritagonist is the best place for this information? If all we have is dicdef, transwiki'ing and soft redirecting to Wiktionary also seems better than straight deletion. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is not a mention, the redirect will continue to confuse those who come across it. As we've seen above, the prefix used is not straightforward, so we cannot assume someone will arrive at the protagonist article and expect to figure out what the word means without further clarification. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 18 April 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.

Liaqat Ali (cricketer, born 1987)[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. Deryck C. 09:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Player has played for 2 different cricketing sides. per WP:XY the current redirect could confuse readers as they may be looking for information on him playing for Abbottabad Falcons. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I honestly don't understand the nominator's rationale: Player has played for 2 different cricketing sides, which seems to be irrelevant. This redirect was created as a result of this AfD, and is meant to aid readers who might search for this player, regardless of what cricket team he is currently on. Seems like a perfectly plausible search term in my book. Pinging Premeditated Chaos, who created this redirect for further input. CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I created the redirect since it seemed to be a plausible search term, but I don't care to learn enough about cricket to care either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's not what WP:XY is about (also the information could be added to the list). If redirects such as this were deleted, would there be a hatnote for a third cricketer with the same name but who only played for one side but not this one? Peter James (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the point of a redirect to a list entry which provides even less information about the subject that what's already contained in the name of the redirect itself. This cricketer may not even be eligible for inclusion in the list, as his is the only entry without an article. If some meaningful content about him is appropriately added somewhere, then retarget, otherwise delete. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a Pakistan Cricket Board reference to Liaqat Ali in the target list page. I think per WP:NCRICKET, although the entry doesn't have an article, it satisfies the inclusion criteria in the standalone list. Jay (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The player did have an article until very recently, when he was deleted for failing WP:GNG. The Cricket Project has come to the opinion that if a player isn't notable enough (in terms of GNG) for an article, that they should be listed in lists for the teams they played for, and if there is a suitable redirect (i.e. one team, or a major team) then it should be redirected there. However in this case he played for 2 different sides, of which neither was his major team or main team, hence why I suggested deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a problem for the Cricket project to solve  ? I went by WP:EXEMPT1E and WP:NCRICKET. Abbottabad Falcons is not a standalone list. Jay (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're trying to. To clarify what I'm saying is he should be in the lists for the teams he played for (this list where you've cited and the other when it's created) but shouldn't have a redirect as the reader may be looking for information on either team he played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and remove from the list since it looks to be for notable cricketers. Redirects to a skeleton list that has no additional information is not helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove from the list, per Uanfala and Tavix. This is not providing useful information; if there are no sources to support telling a reader anything else, then a redirect pointing to an unsourced list entry with less information than the redirect title helps nobody. ~ mazca talk 09:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I wrote XY to just cover redirects that themselves expressed multiple topics, but the principle has long since been intended to cover redirects like this, where a subtopic could equally be redirected to multiple places mention it. That seems to be the case here, but I don't know if there's local consensus to the cricket project that would prefer a national-ish team like this. If so, I could live with it. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 22 April 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 Scandinavian languages[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. This redirect is clearly questionable, as good points have been made that it's taxonomically odd that "South Scandinavian languages", a group of which Danish might be described as being a part of, should itself point to a subcategory of Danish. However, a better target hasn't really been suggested, and those arguing to keep make the fair point that this is potentially the best place to describe this information, and that it might just need better explanation within the article. Our current coverage of this topic clearly produces a rather strange edge-case that leads to nobody being particularly sure what the best way of handling this title is. ~ mazca talk 09:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at article. It is possible that at some point various dialects of Danish have been considered full-fledged languages (such debates are common, including among other Germanic languages), but there's nothing in the article about that, much less saying this was the term employed. I thought at first that this was probably a legitimate linguistics term being used too narrowly and that it should be its own article and include Danish and various now-extinct ancient and medieval southerly languages of the Scandinavian group. However, a search at Google Scholar produces zero hits for this term at all [8]. So I'm thinking it's probably an outright deletion candidate. I spot-checked for similar titles and didn't find any as actual pages ("Southern Scandinavian languages", "South Scandinavian language", "South Scandinavian", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mention the term somewhere in the article. The term "South Scandinavian" is used in Glottolog[9]. The source given for this grouping is: Oscar Bandle (1973). Die Gliederung des Nordgermanischen. (Beiträge zur nordischen Philologie, 47.) Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. I don't have access to that book, so I can not verify if "South Scandinavian" (or rather its German equivalent Südskandinavisch) is acutally mentioned there. Glottolog is notorious for terminological ideosycrasies, so someone needs to check it. Otherwise, I couldn't find the term in any source in Englisch. Südskandinavisch fares minimally better on Google Scholar: a handful of the 34 hits indeed refers to a linguistic subgroup. A Danish source however has been easy to find[10], although here, the context is mutual intellegibility, not genealogical subgrouping. –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Danish language shows the family tree as North Germanic > South Scandinavian > Danish, which makes a redirect to Danish dialects a little odd or out of order. No actual mention of the term outside of the infobox. Unless something is added to one of the articles (and the redirect pointed appropriately), I'd be in favor of delete. Carter (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That, and the existence of Südskandinavisch in one source doesn't give us license to freely translate this to "South Scandinavian", nor equate this with a singular use of this term at the Glottolog list, and equate all that in turn with the Danish language. That's a big pile of WP:OR. The Danish sourced linked to, with sydskandinavisk appears to agree with our chart in the infobox, and suggests this is either a grouping once larger than Danish, or is a proto form that later became Danish, and either way it is not what the article Danish is about. So, this should be a redlink, either because it's a legit subject for an article, or it's an uncommon idea without enough real-world traction to merit an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I made the RD to 'Danish dialects' was that "South Scandinavian" refers to the group that Danish belongs to, and that group is mostly covered at 'Danish dialects'. This is because the South Scandinavian languages are mostly spoken in Denmark and are therefore generally considered to be Danish dialects. If we'd treated e.g. Jutlandic as a separate language and excluded it from the Danish dialects article, the confusion wouldn't arise. There are other Danish rd's that are messed up. It might be worthwhile creating a 'S. Scandinavian' stub with component languages Danish, East Danish and Jutlandic, if that wouldn't be a content fork with 'Danish dialects'. Or perhaps move 'Danish dialects' to 'S. Scandinavian' and add Scanian? — kwami (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some cleanup like that might result in a viable article, but we need to avoid confusing 1) a language group (even a small one) with 2) dialects within a language; these are essentially opposite topics, with standardized Danish in the middle of them. To the extent sources may conflict on how they want to define these things, we have to document that conflict (within WP:DUE) not silently pick a side in it. When it come to specific classification of something like Jutlandish, go with the predominant view in contemporary linguistics sources (i.e., if it's mostly treated as dialect of Danish, then focus on that, and only mention briefly that it is sometimes classified as a seprate South[ern] Scandinavian language. If it's mostly classified as the latter, then make that the main story, and only briefly touch on it sometimes being classified as a dialect of Danish. In short, treat this the way we treat all other intergrading continua that run from language group down to dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Comment. I really don't see the need for a potential split with a tiny stub article - I think that would just be a fork of the same topic, per kwami's comments above. It doesn't appear to be a super-notable alternate term per nominator so I'm not sure the term deserves to be mentioned in the article, but even if this is Glottolog's weirdness, the standard for a redirect is very light - one source using the terminology may well qualify it as a valid redirect. SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read the above a few times now and I feel like I get a different sense of the issue every time I read it. There seems to be some kind of nuance, assumptions, and/or confusion going on with the term. As such, we really ought to nail down what it can mean and describe it (either in its own article or a section of one) if we have the sourcing to do so. Until or unless this happens, the potential for confusion may continue so this is better off deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Austronesier and Kwami: I really don't see where the confusion lies: there's a bunch of language varieties covered in the article Danish dialects, and the redirect under discussion appears to be just an alternative name for this group of varieties. It doesn't matter if you see them as a collection of sister nodes to Standard Danish, or – following everyday perceptions – as somehow subordinated to Danish; these are two ways of perceiving the same underlying situation. If there exists some language that is clearly South Scandinavian but also unambiguously not Danish, then we can think twice – but only if there's evidence of actual discussion of such an entity in the literature and not just an RfD-internal hypothetical.
    There's no OR in translating sydskandinavisk as South Scandinavian, and even if we just stick to Glottolog's use of the English term, then the current target has mostly the same scope. I'm not worried that different sources may present slightly different definitions of a term (and since when do we expect completely water-tight classifications of dialect continua anyway?). These can be explained in the article text: there's no need to spin off a separate article for each shade of meaning.
    The term South Scandinavian should ideally be mentioned in the target article, but even if it's not, I don't see any potential for confusion. How puzzling could it be for a reader to arrive at an article which has right at the top a map of the language varieties in what is clearly a country in the south of Scandinavia? – Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 17 April 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.

Wet tar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Wet tar

KO temporary[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 to Kemetic Orthodox religion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect that was used only in 2008 for a mainspace draft. Ibadibam (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is support to move this redirect, but the target is not yet clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 7 April 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_April_7&oldid=1020658452"