Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2022.

Nightmare Alley (upcominh 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. WP:SNOW applies. ✗plicit 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not upcoming, upcoming misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Would have tagged for R3 if it was recently created. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More to the point, the film is no longer upcominh so we don't need upcominh to disambiguate. We probably should never use the term upcominh to disambiguate per WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This film is not upcoming or "upcominh". This is both implausible and COSTLY, if another film named Nightmare Alley were to be made. TartarTorte 22:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete film is no longer upcominh. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Icabobin (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping "(upcoming film)" redirects is already harmful in many cases; the implausible typo is just icing on the cake. Glades12 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:GIF[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect; I'd expect WP:GIF to be a shortcut for a page about GIF animations on Wikipedia, not a DYK nomination. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 10 August 2022 (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.

Target subjects no longer "upcoming"[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. WP:SNOW applies. ✗plicit 14:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming. In addition, none of these redirects have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not useful to have redirect with upcoming for released film. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indagate: I removed your duplicate comments when I merged the sections. However, I noticed that this comment was not on every section I posted prior to merging the sections; you may want to confirm this comment refers to all the nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yeah my comment can apply to any redirect with upcoming in its name that's released Indagate (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure why, but this redirect seems to see a significant amount of traffic. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: This comment refers to the redirect West Side Story (upcoming film) Vikram (upcoming film). Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Title corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @2pou: I bypassed several redirects in the "article" namespace towards Vikram (upcoming film) before and after (Turned out that I missed a few. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)) making this nomination, so that is quite plausible. (That, and I've noticed that in the history of Wikipedia, almost all titles and redirects towards articles about films made out of the geographic region which its target was made tend to get a ton of views if the title is linked almost anywhere in any article, so your claim is understandable; but, since the links to the redirect have now been bypassed, the views should start disappearing as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Even with Vikram (upcoming film) having significant traffic (for a seemingly unknown reason), it doesn't make sense to have an inaccurate redirect especially if another film named Vikram were to come out. I think it's also possible people are looking for Vikram (actor)'s next film, which would make this inaccurate regardless. TartarTorte 23:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: isn't it standard to keep redirects from page moves, even if the original title is no longer correct? Not all incoming links are internal links. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect leftover from a page move that is unhelpful or WP:COSTLY is always going to be a redirect that is unhelpful or WP:COSTLY. Also, some of these are not {{R from move}}s. And the external link concern, in most cases, only applies to the "File:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – this should not be controversial, readers will not be looking for these redirects because the films are no longer upcoming. In fact, these kinds of redirects (along with "Untitled ... sequel/film") can usually be speedy deleted under WP:G6, no discussion is needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to this, it's clear from the lengthy list of past discussions (virtually all of which closed as delete) that there is strong consensus to delete these kinds of redirects. @Steel1943, I suggest nominating similar redirects for speedy deletion per G6 in the future, as this isn't a controversial topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: It has been occasionally been somewhat controversial the past few times a nomination like this occurred; I tend to nominate at least one batch of redirects like these every year or so. There has usually been at least one editor who will say "keep" for some reason like page views or something. And WP:G6 is open to interpretation by the approving/denying administrator, and these are not a clear case of a technical reason. Unless there is a new WP:CSD criterion created for redirects such as these, this is the place they should go. (But if a discussion were to occur suggesting such a speedy criterion be created, expect me to support it.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed toyed with the idea of proposing a new speedy deletion criterion, and would definitely be open to it if there is support fromt the masses. I just haven't found the need to do so so far since G6 has been working well for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given above, many if not all of these might need to be reused one day for new projects as well. It really should be standard to auto-delete these kinds of redirects once works have come out.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is probably obvious, but please make sure there's no older content in the histories of these redirects before deleting. (If they are the result of page moves, that's unlikely the case but you never know). Any redirects that have significant content entries should be history merged into the main film article. Masem (t) 14:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects like these should be added to WP:G8, in analogy to Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted. As soon as the target is released, no upcoming film of that title any longer exists, so the redirect becomes misleading. Paradoctor (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously not about upcoming films once they come out. We seriously need a new criterion for speedy deletion for these. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:31, 16 August 2022 (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.

Unknown Pollutant[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. GedUK  20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown" is not mentioned at the target, nor does the target suggest that it is a term for unknown pollutants. Google Scholar searches don't suggest that these terms are used interchangeably. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. They are not interchangeable terms. TartarTorte 16:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense! Sorry about that. I thought it may be of use as that is a word i searched when i was searching for "Contaminants of Emerging Concern" after forgetting the exact term, so i thought it would be of use as a redirect. Although given the precedent doesn't exist, and that Wikipedia is more official than the wiki work i am used to, and that "unknown" doesn't necessarily make sense ( "unknown potential" would be accurate i guess, but that makes even lese sense as a redirect) that's fine, do what you need to do. Eric Lotze (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Lotze No need to apologize. You didn't vandalize or anything. Cheers! TartarTorte 20:18, 17 August 2022 (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.

Supreme Bowl[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results are mostly for a Newark restaurant by this name. Delete unless evidence of use or another justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Searching google for "supreme bowl" + USFL, I got pretty much nothing other than this redirect. TartarTorte 18:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best. I'm getting hits ranging from steel bowls to restaurants like Kentucky Fried Chicken. --Lenticel (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2022 (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.

14 Commonweatlh realms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#14 Commonweatlh realms

Constitution of Afghanistan[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 Procedural keep. Nominator was blocked as a sock, and there are no participants in favor of their proposal. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan and 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, see Draft:Constitution of Afghanistan. Waltermaid (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to this article, "the Taliban said Tuesday they plan to temporarily enact articles from Afghanistan’s 1964 constitution that are 'not in conflict with Islamic Sharia (law)' to govern the country" (also referenced in the wiki article). Until a new document is created, this appears to be most the logical target (see also Superboilles' comment on the now-withdrawn Chad nomination). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman, yes the Taliban plan to temporarily enact some articles from Afghanistan’s 1964 constitution. But currently there is no constitution in Afghanistan. Therefore Draft:Constitution of Afghanistan is better. The Libyan case is also different. There is the Libyan interim Constitutional Declaration. Therefore we can redirect "Constitution of Libya" there. For other uses we can refer to Constitution of Libya (disambiguation). But in the case of Afghanistan it would be mesleading, I think, to redirect directly to 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan. Waltermaid (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that "currently there is no constitution in Afghanistan." The cited article clearly states that the 1964 constitution is being used, albeit only in part. We have an article for that document, and therefore it is the most logical target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman, no the cited article clearly states that the Taliban planned to use the 1964 constitution. It is still not used right now. Waltermaid (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for your claim it is not used currently? If so, I will reconsider. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] So far, it is clear that the 2004 constitution is no longer in force in Afghanistan and that the Taliban have, more or less, restored their constitution that was drafted in 1998. Under that version, the Taliban’s caretaker administration is a theocratic monarchial system with a supreme leader, known as the amir al-Mu’minin (leader of the faithful), as its king. Waltermaid (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to disambiguate per nom and above discussion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 10 August 2022 (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.

🃠[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what emoji or symbol this is… I only see an empty square. It's also unclear what connection it has to The Fool card. Therefore, I suggest deletion, unless someone can prove its meaning and what affinity it has with the article it currently targets. CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling the character 🃠 brings up (amongst others) our article, Playing cards in Unicode, explaining 🃠 (U+1F0E0) is The Fool card in Tarot. Also, https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0.
According to https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0 , this character displays on MS Windows (untested), so on those systems it may not be unusual for people to right-click search Wikipedia to find its meaning.
Maybe The Fool (Tarot card) should mention the Unicode character, but I'm not sure an appropriate place for that info (since it has no infobox nor sections on representations thereof).
Llew Mawr (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The primary benefit of redirects like this is so that someone which is incapable of seeing the character for technical reasons can search it on Wikipedia to discover what the character represents. U+1F0E0 is an obscure character which many computers can't display (e.g. my computer displays a box with "01F0E0" in it), so this redirect would be useful for anyone who finds the character and wants to know what it means (and usefulness is one of the main reasons to keep a redirect). Maybe there should be some method of citing redirects like this one in order to help prove that they go to the correct target, but this one does (the Unicode character database which came with my computer describes it as "PLAYING CARD FOOL", which is further evidence in addition to Llew Mawr's that the target is correct). --ais523 12:03, 10 August 2022 (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.

Ææ, Öö[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#Ææ, Öö

C. difficile[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. Also changed C.difficile and C difficile to the same target. There has to be a discussion on similar redirects with respect to the target of the organism or the disease. Jay 💬 12:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other redirects of the form C. diff (there are many: [2] ) point to Clostridioides difficile infection rather than Clostridioides difficile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the normal abbreviation for the species name. All the other redirects should probably target the organism rather than the disease as well, but that's a separate discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least the redirect C.difficile should be handled the same as this one for now, though. All others abbreviate to "Diff". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C difficile should also be bundled, as a group of three redirects. Both C.difficile and C difficile should be tagged as {{R from avoided double redirect|C. difficile}} and target Clostridioides difficile -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are more too that target the infection article that I previously missed. The issue is that the article about the organism was created much later and the original article was left to focus on the infection, so there are many redirects that need to be reconciled. Not sure if the abbreviated versions should remain pointing to the infection article or not. We could have a new bundled nomination of all the redirects, but that's cumbersome since there are so many. Perhaps we should just reach rough consensus on what should target the organism article and which ones should target the infection article, and someone can then just do the cleanup as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proper abbreviation. The target also contains information about infection, so it also serves that -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2022 (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.

AnCap Dave Smith[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#AnCap Dave Smith

Indian filmmakers' next [films, without the last word][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. Jay 💬 11:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are also their respective creator's "next" (what?), which will keep changing for as long as they continue to work in cinema, like with the consensus with the other discussion last week. Not sure why we still need these, so I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss. Regards, SONIC678 06:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: All COSTLY redirects TartarTorte 16:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a textbook case of WP:COSTLY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as the redirects are confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. "This filmmaker's next" is a hopelessly confusing redirect format as it can refer to literally anything people do repeatedly (meals, showers, shopping tours, doctor's appointments...). Now that the films are out, these redirects are both confusing and wholly incorrect, making them an even bigger disservice to readers than they were from the start. I found Vijay Krishna - Yash Raj's Next Project too; can we add it to this RFD? Glades12 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. Thanks for finding that one, I must've missed it when I nominated the others. Regards, SONIC678 02:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uselessly costly redirects that cease to be useful once the targets are released over and over again. I wish these were salted, but one such salting proposal of mine did not get enough consensus. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:29, 16 August 2022 (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.

Template:Ext[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. Leaning towards keep, I see no reason to relist. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could equally well refer to Template:Extant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found what "Extant" actually is. That redirect does not seem to be particularly useful either; still not sure about this shortcut though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many templates this could possibly refer too, but absent any evidence that the current use is causing problems (which is not presented here and I've not found when looking) there is no reason to delete or change the current use. This is especially true when the suggested alternative, Template:Extant, is itself a very unintuitive and unused redirect (to Template:COI editnotice). Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2022 (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.

List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Soul2Sole FC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Soul2Sole FC

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_10&oldid=1104998108"