Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2021.

2025 United States presidential inauguration[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 Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election#2025. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:20, 24 May 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.

Queer platonic[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. While there was an early consensus to add content relevant to the title at the target, after editors failed to find suitable sources to support potential content consensus shifted to deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. I couldn't find any specific discussion of queer-platonic relationships, which surprised me. I think Romantic friendship describes something similar, and it does have some discussion of queer topics, unlike the current target, but this really merits an article of its own. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is surprising. There's something on a similar topic at Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings#Idealised heroic friendship, but there isn't an article on Heroic friendship either. Seems the whole area is, er, ripe for the taking. But I'm not convinced that deletion is the right option here, as Platonic love isn't a bad target and we could add a few words about the queer variety there in an instant. There's a decent entry on "Queerplatonic relationship" at The Rice University Neologisms Database which might be enough to cite a brief mention in the target article, in which case we should keep all three redirects? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where they are, with mention in the target article as appropriate. There's not enough reliably sourced here that would get past the "sad stub" point for a stand-alone article, but there can and should be mention of the concept. Vaticidalprophet 10:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As things currently stand, it appears best to me to leave things mostly alone and simply try to expand that targeted article with more discussions on platonic relationships between two men, two nonbinary people, two women, and so on. I'm not quite sure if WP:REDLINK really applies. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened by request. The nominator maintains that since my closure, he has tried and been unable to add any substantial, reliably sourced content concerning queerplatonic relationships to Platonic love; as the ability to do so was a premise of both keep votes, I would challenge interested parties to add the content themselves or revise their positions. @Vaticidalprophet and CoffeeWithMarkets:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the relist. The relisting comment mostly covers it. I'd add that when this was initially closed, I decided to just add some sourced content myself, since I assume we were all on the same page that that would be an improvement. But after looking into it, I was surprised to find that it probably can't clear WP:NEO. That's why it was redirected years ago, and apparently the situation hasn't changed that much. I also considered reviving the unsourced, one-sentence stub and taking it to AfD, but that seemed ill advised. (Pinging @Chiswick Chap: also.)
I hope we can also all agree that the status quo does not serve readers well, promising content that isn't there. Could a reader be searching for the term without already knowing what a platonic relationship is, and hence get something out of it? Maybe, but that seems unlikely, much less likely than confusing or disappointing the reader. Could someone else succeed where I've failed? If we uphold the status quo, it's likely to just come back to RfD further down the road. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying that I've seen this, and also that pings don't work in relists, so I only saw it by checking RfD. Will return with a !vote. Vaticidalprophet 08:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preliminary, I'm fine with delete. I was leaning towards a keep in that I figured there was probably enough for a brief mention, considering the original desire for delete came from "we should be making room for a stand-alone article". If there isn't enough for either, no point. Vaticidalprophet 14:03, 29 May 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.

Portsmouth Council (Virginia)[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) 16:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article of a Portsmouth Council. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The text has been added to the history section. --evrik (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 24 May 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.

Portsmouth Council (Ohio)[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) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article of a "Portsmouth Council". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Evrik:. Would you please stop interfering with the process of RfD, as you also did with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Portsmouth Council. It subverts due process and creates confusion. Once an RfD has started, please don't interfere with it until it's finished. By all means express an opinion, but please do not move redirects under discussion, remove RfD tags, or edit the redirect under discussion until the RfD is closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interference? The previous RfD made sense. As the author of the original redirect I went ahead and took care of it. Not everything has to be a long drawn out process. --evrik (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: Once an RfD has started it must be concluded without interference. You should not try and shorten the process other than by commenting here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Portsmouth, Ohio#Government -- dylx 12:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only articles using Portsmouth Council (Ohio) are Scouting related articles. There are no articles pointing to Portsmouth, Ohio. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems basically useful, at a minimum for communicating that the Portsmouth Council is now the Simon Kenton Council. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 24 May 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.

William Patlov Daniel[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 03:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Daniel's birth name is William Partlow, not William Patlov. Not a likely typo (on top of his full birthname not being a likely search term in the first place). Lennart97 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought maybe this was an alternate transliteration in some language, but Googling "Partlow" "Patlov" yields nothing relevant. Old, but not a lot of pageviews. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:18, 25 May 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.

Trcuk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 1#Trcuk

Long Hots[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 Capsicum frutescens. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search suggests that this refers to a specific pepper used in Italian (Italian-American?) cuisine, but I can't find any article on Wikipedia that corresponds to it or otherwise mentions it. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see various sources listing it as capsicum annuum (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]) which seems more likely owing to broad culinary use (c. frutescens are often edible but usually grown ornamentally rather than for fruit), though many of those sources are the sort I wouldn't exactly trust for scientific rigour. I saw one that said it is a type of cayenne pepper but that seems to be based only on appearance (cayennes are much hotter). I suggest keeping and tagging {{R with possibilities}}. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:19, 24 May 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.

Moues[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Moues

N particle[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 both. N particle (Latin) to Neutron and N particle (Greek) to Neutrino. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the targets mentions the term. I'm also not on the right device right now to figure out what the difference between these two titles is. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is The first one is the Greek letter capital nu, which should point to neutrinos, while the other is the latin N, which should point to N-particles/N-rays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My system is telling me the opposite - the one pointing at Neutrino is Latin, the one pointing at N-ray is Greek. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then they should be flipped. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except N-ray isn't even real, and there is no mention of an N-particle in that article. It is more likely users are searching for neutrino, which is a particle, than the N ray which is not even real. So IMO both redirects should point to Neutrino. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph As LaundryPizza03 already pointed out below, "n" is also the symbol for the neutron. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Hmmm, that is very true. It should point to Neutron. I've corrected my comment below to reflect this. Polyamorph (talk) 11:23, 25 May 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.

Electron antineutrino[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 Electron neutrino#Electron antineutrino. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These should point at the same target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, both now point to Electron neutrino#Electron antineutrino. This didn't need an RFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:10, 24 May 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.

Non-notable Dinoco 400 pit crew characters[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 12:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These non-notable Cars characters (chiefs and members of several Dinoco 400 contestants' pit crews in the first movie) are not mentioned in the target article, and haven't been for years since they were all removed by SpikeJones back in January 2009 as part of an effort to trim down the page (see here for more info). These redirects don't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays, so I don't really know why we should keep them lying around here... Regards, SONIC678 12:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If we don't have any info to provide the reader, we shouldn't act like we do. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 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.

Operation Flying Eagle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 1#Operation Flying Eagle

3.11[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 1#3.11

Tajikistan copyright 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 Speedy retarget to revert a side-effect of vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not related in any way to Tajik copyright law. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 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.

Watercaust[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 21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable WP:NEO. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 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.

Terra Research[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Terra Research

Aceh 2005 earthquake[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Aceh 2005 earthquake

2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Not Directly Affected[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 where not needed to preserve history. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible long search terms. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the latter for attribution; a merge took place. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but these search terms are so long and implausible that keeping them would do more harm than deleting them. They shouldn't have been created in the first place. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attribution is required. Deleting that redirect without leaving attribution undermines a straight rule, whereas I'm not sure how keeping it harms. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but this redirect was left behind before Wikipedia switched to CC-BY-SA. Mentioning 2 or 3 significant contributors and deleting is now legally acceptable. Aqua3993 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm fine with that as long as the contributors are recorded. But I maintain that keeping the history is the easiest and best way to preserve attribution. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, I was very aware that there was page history in these redirects before I made the nomination. However, a redirect should not exist solely as a container for page history. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you are implying that the attribution is unneeded, then that falls afoul of copyright. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • We can move the redirect outside mainspace, preserving the page history and preventing readers from accessing it. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such insanely specific redirects could create harmful user expectations. See WP:PANDORA. Aqua3993 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers will rarely ever come across this redirect by searching for it in the first place. And besides, can you imagine anyone searching up 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Countries That Were Not Directly Affected But Have Lost Citizens and then remembering that exact string and searching up (e.g.) 2011 Japan Earthquake Countries That Were Not Directly Affected But Have Lost Citizens? I can't. But PANDORA is a crappy, crappy, utterly flawed rationale that gets brought up far too much – redirects are judged on their own merits; few people do searches in a consistent manner and looking at the title often dictates the style of their next search anyhow; and when you think about it, PANDORA is literally "right, let's delete this (and harm readers' searches) because if they follow a pattern (1/5 or less chance by my estimation) they may be inconvenienced". I'm not sure how to express this, but PANDORA is something like let's harm xxx readers in case xxx/5 readers who follow odd pattern are harmed. It completely, utterly, defeats the point. But I digress. These ones have their merits: K4 (first one formed by page move) and preserving attribution, as well as making sure old links remain intact – both have decent pageviews. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #1 as implausible. It's very old, which is a point in favor of keeping, but the low amount of pageviews suggests that no one is linking to this from elsewhere. Keep #2 for attribution reasons. Even if technically not legally required, it's good practice to maintain diffs of merged pages unless there's a strong harm in keeping the redirect, and I agree that there's not a strong case for PANDORA here. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 09:16, 26 May 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.

Existential threats[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 05:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The singular form, Existential threat, was deleted in a January RfD because it is too vague. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent. Honestly we should have a CSD for cases like these. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 18:19, 25 May 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.

Stagnated democracy[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 Democratic backsliding. (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 20:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think as it stands this redirect is more likely to surprise readers than to help them. As best I can tell this is a partial title match for the English translation of a paper originally published in Spanish by this academic, which I think is a rather tenuous link. A google search doesn't suggest to me that the phrase "Stagnated democracy" is paticularly strongly associated with Sergio Aguayo. The best potential target I was able to find is Political stagnation, but I don't think it's a perfect fit. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. It is confusing for a link about a political concept to lead to an article about a person. JIP | Talk 15:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I agree the current target can hardly be associated with the search term. My google search showed that the term is actually used so it should be redirected either to Political stagnation or to Democracy with some information added. I've found these sources that can be used: 1 - an often mentioned work by Eric Hiariej, 2, 3 from 1870, 4 - short mention. Less Unless (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although a consensus for retargeting has been reached, there are two potential targets here that are being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:36, 24 May 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.

King Bob-omb[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#King Bob-omb

Minecraft SMP YouTubers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Minecraft SMP YouTubers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_24&oldid=1027189806"