Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 29

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2021.

The Town(film)

[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 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect targets the 1945 film called "The Town" when there are other films with this name. However, it is malformed, and the correct redirect name for this is "The Town (film)". So delete this redirect unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:23, 29 January 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.

Noldorin

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Noldorin

Existential threat

[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. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, an existential threat also refers to threats to any entity which are not usually global catastrophic risks:

  • "Dementia thus represents an existential threat that creates profound emotional and psychological challenges for those who are directly affected by the illness."[1]
  • "Former CIA officer Marc Sageman concluded that “al Qaeda is no longer seen as an existential threat to the West”"[2]
  • "[deportations] rapidly radicalized monstrously into an opportunity to rid Anatolia once and for all of those peoples perceived to be an imminent existential threat to the future of the empire."[3]

Since there are reliable sources about existential threats in general as well as there rhetoric of existential threats,[4][5][6][7][8][9] I would say delete to encourage article creation. (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There have been many and significant discussions about this term on the talk page of the main article. We are not creating a separate article on this topic, it will be a content fork. Attempting to end-run around those discussions "to encourage article creation" with this deletion request is not appreciated. If you believe there can be a new article that will not en up largely being a copy of the existing article topic, discuss on the article talk page first. -- GreenC 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions I'm seeing on the talk page are whether "existential risk" should be its own page, which consensus points to no. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, "existential risk" is used mostly as a synonym for "global catastrophic risk" (it's bolded in the introduction of the article) but "existential threat" is certainly not. (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term is far too vague to target anywhere, as noted by original nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this really is a redirect with possibilities - one could probably make a set-indexy article discussing the various concepts of existential threats, but I'm not honestly sure that would really evolve to much more than a dictionary definition or a duplication. This is a phrase that does often mean "threats to our existence", but really just means the threat to the existence of whatever it is you're talking about. I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to not be a net positive. ~ mazca talk 19:13, 7 February 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.

Glanduin

[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. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through a variety of redirections to targets that were later redirected, we get a redirect that's not mentioned anywhere. It wasn't in Gondor proper, IIRC, so the current target isn't appropriate. It appears in the map of Eregion at Geography of Middle-earth, but that seems to be about it. Not sure if retargeting to the minor mention in the (Spanish-language) map or deletion is better, but the current target doesn't work. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for firmer consensus given the page's history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 29 January 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.

Gaius Julius Caesar 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. There is a fairly even disagreement in the early part of the debate as to whether these ordinals are useful as redirects given their apparent appearance in certain old sources. However, the later participation broadly focuses on the fact that, in addition to being rarely-used, these do not appear to be even accurate in some cases. The overall balance of consensus leans towards deleting them, as their confusing ambiguity seemingly outweighs their possible use as search terms for readers of certain old sources. ~ mazca talk 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anybody, let alone a reliable source, distinguish general Romans by numbers. It all seems arbitrary and gratuitous, not to mention that some of these numbers do not correspond with their chronological order of appearance in history. They should all be deleted. Avilich (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The only one of these I think I've ever seen used is Drusus II and even then that's in very old sources and rarely.★Trekker (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of them are likely search terms; to the extent that a dictionary or encyclopedia might use numerals to distinguish between homonymous individuals, it doesn't mean that those numerals are meant to be part of their names, and it's unlikely that readers will assume otherwise because of a few occurrences. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – The ordinals occur in 19th-century sholarship, e.g. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, copies of which (several editions) are widely spread on the internet – a reader might try to find more updated info on these persons of Roman antiquity in Wikipedia, and that is hampered if it isn't clear exactly who indentifies with whom from the outdated sources to the more modern sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These numberings are outdated and inaccurate, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should encourage that. I also don't believe the majority these terms are common enough to make them plausible search terms.★Trekker (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably this 19th-century (!) source used ordinals as an ad hoc method to distinguish the relevant persons of the same name, and did not intent to follow or establish a general procedure. Further, as Treker said, they're outdated (scholarship on the Julii Caesares has changed since then) or outright wrong and inaccurate (Tiberius Gracchus and Marcus Porcius Cato). Finally, ordinals are just not commonly used in a way that justifies redirects: already they were probably seldom used in the 19th century and are virtually non-existent in the 21st. An internet search returns basically zero results other than wikipedia mirrors. Avilich (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these occur in the work now repeatedly cited or blamed for them—apparently without anyone bothering to check whether it had anything to do with this—it doesn't contain biographical articles at all. To the extent that any dictionary or reference work uses numerals to distinguish between homonymous individuals—a practice still seen in the present day—it's invariably clear that these aren't part of the subject's names, and exist only to distinguish between the entries in the work. It's equally clear that these numbers in Wikipedia are largely the invention of the article creators, who bear the sole responsibility for introducing a confusing and largely useless set of distinctions. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Neologisms unsupported by reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally a spread of arguments like the above would be enough to close as delete, but given the amount of pages affected and the lack of unanimous consensus, one relist seems in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Francis Schonken. Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Francis Schonken. None of the attempted reubuttal of their vote addresses the reasons why these are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give one example: Marcus Portio Cato (II) and Marcus Portio Cato (III) both redirect to the same article, on the son of Cato the Younger, who is in the sixth generation of that name from Cato the Elder. (There are eight articles on men of that name, since the men in the family shared the same names for generations. See Porcia gens#Porcii Catones.) I am unable to find any reliable sources referring to that man by these names. If these names are "widely spread", as is claimed, why are there no journals, books or academic websites where these two names are used to refer to this man? Hits like this one [10] do not use a numeral as a generational marker. That is a paper about Cato the Elder not the son of Cato the Younger, or the third generation of men called Marcus Portio Cato. The numeral denotes that it is the third paper in a series. That is the problem with the supposed source above: even if the numerals exist in the book (even though I am unable to see any), the numerals are not being used as generational markers. These names are entirely made-up. They do not exist anywhere in the academic literature, either now or in the 19th-century. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is obviously the best course of action here. @Mikehawk10 and Thryduulf: this is why you should read what others post and do research on the historical individuals in question before stupidly disrupting the work of those who have already done so. Aside from the highly deceptive remark that "none of the attempted rebuttals address the reasons why these are useful search terms" (all of them obviously do), it has already been shown above that these ordinals are outdated, inaccurate, misleading, and chronologically incorrect. One of the persons in question even has multiple ordinals assigned to him, which you'd have known had you simply bothered to look at the list you're giving an opinion on. The ordinals are not supported by the very source cited above and, even if they were, using numbers for a simple ad hoc chronological sorting in a very specific source does not make them appropriate for wider application (I'll say it yet again: internet search results only return Wikipedia mirrors). Avilich (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is essentially correct, if a bit brusque. Francis Schonken's reasoning is based on a false premise: these particular ordinals do not occur either in antiquity or in modern literature on the subjects. While I cannot rule out the possibility that some reference source provided parenthetical numbers for convenience, they would never have been used in the manner applied here. These numbers are the well-intentioned creation of long-ago Wikipedians who felt they would be useful for distinguishing between homonymous individuals. They are now outmoded and confusing, since there are other ways of achieving the same ends, and the continued use of these numbers risks creating confusion for readers. They have no existence independent from Wikipedia, and so are unlikely to be used as search terms; and there are much easier ways of identifying particular individuals now that we have articles about most important Roman gentes, better guidance for distinguishing between homonymous Romans in article titles (and subsection headers), and clearer redirects than any of these numbers provide. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were quite brusque yourself in your first reply above, only now the two respondents had the information on the plate in front of them and still failed to eat the evidence. I wasn't putting much faith that the two would even return here to respond, since they're obviously the type which comments on just about every discussion, and so their votes would just cast needless doubt on what should be done here. The weakness of their position needed to be outlined clearly, lest this be prolonged for yet another week. Avilich (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's putting things a bit strongly—the writer cited a good scholarly work for something absurd that it didn't support in the first place, and I didn't call anybody stupid, disruptive, or deceptive. P Aculeius (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Mikehawk10 has commented on just one other open discussion besides this one. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Avilich, please don't !vote twice. Your nomination counts as a !vote, and whilst you are free to make further comments, prefacing the comment with a bolded delete can be misleading to other participants and the closer. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The numbering is highly misleading and confusing. Less Unless (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all based on the arguments provided by the nominator and the debunking of the opposing arguments. Lennart97 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) — 2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

Aulus Postumius Albinus Magnus

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first has a wrong surname, the second has a wrong office and wrong year, and the third has his name misspelled and also a wrong office. Delete as incorrect and not particularly plausible. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, again, as nom. The linked discussion dealt with other things as well, and, with regards to the scope of this current one, actually supports deletion of the one outstanding redirect. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the nominator and have already advocated for deletion. Adding a separate bolded vote, especially without "as nom", is misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The recent AfD seemed to struggle with this a bit because these duplicate pages with, in some cases, completely inaccurate disambiguators are so confusing. For that reason they are all poor redirects and unlikely to help readers. ~ mazca talk 15:08, 11 February 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.

Concussion substitute

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Concussion substitute

US Patent

[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 retarget to United States patent law. SNOW close, with everyone, including the redirect's creator, supporting this retarget. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be an XNR, but redirect to United States patent law, where US Patent also points, instead; however, EncMstr seems to have a different opinion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 29 January 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.

Shia Islam/On this day/Jumada al-awwal/24

[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 per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be in mainspace. R3 does not apply as this is not recently created. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:52, 29 January 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.

W. Buyford

[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 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Searching on-wiki for the middle one, I only found Richard Bowman (cricketer), which does not seem to be the person in question; the rest does not seem to have any related information on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:36, 29 January 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.

America and new zealand

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned redirect. Also, this redirect is unnecessary for linking and searching purposes. Another redirect exists with the correct capitalization. JsfasdF252 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 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.

Never Too Much (song) (redirect)

[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:43, 29 January 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.

10 Years (Armin van Buuren album) (redirect)

[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:42, 29 January 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.

10 Years (Banco de Gaia album) (redirect)

[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 29 January 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.

Nosebleed section (redirect)

[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 29 January 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.

Nosebleed (redirect)

[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. @Seventyfiveyears and Tavix: Pinging the participants of the previous discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:40, 29 January 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.

Like a Virgin (book) (redirect)

[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 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have been created for testing purposes, but it isn't used as much now, and nothing links to it. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Like a Virgin (film) (redirect). Regards, SONIC678 06:00, 29 January 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.

Trump terrorist attack

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Trump terrorist attack

Digitalization

[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 Digitalization and retarget Digitalisation to the new DAB page. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalization and Digitization are, according to Gartner's IT glossary and other sources, ([11] and [12] for exemple) 2 different concepts. The first being the use of digital technologies to change a business model and the 2nd being the process of changing from analog to digital form. I believe a better target would be Digital_transformation#Digitalization_(of_industries_and_organizations). SAP actually mentions this redirect here saying that it reinforces the ambiguity between these terms Dom from Paris (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:50, 29 January 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_January_29&oldid=1006408342"