Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2022.

Jreg

[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) 04:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an academic journal that shares this abbreviation, which is the Yale Journal on Regulation <https://www.yalejreg.com/>. I don't see a reason that the ironic candidate whose campaign website is this angelfire website is the WP:PTOPIC when there's an influential 40 year-old Yale journal that has its own full article. As such, I believe that this should be retargeted to Yale Journal on Regulation, which appears to be the primary topic with respect to long-term significance for this term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:41, 31 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.

Angryverse

[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 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is way WP:TOOSOON, and I can't find anything remotely reliable about this supposedly upcoming game beyond a possible TikTok ad leading to a game design survey. My vote is delete. TNstingray (talk) 23:24, 31 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.

Irish Internationals

[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 23:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at title match for any of the topics at the target page. Without that connection, the use of the word "Internationals" in the redirect is potentially vague, and could refer to various topics such as any of the pages beginning with "Irish International". Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Irish Internationals are players who have played for Ireland in an international match in at least soccer, rugby, cricket, hockey, fencing and probably at least most other sports that feature one or more international teams representing Ireland (either the Republic or the whole island, depending on the sport) so the current target is definitely too narrow. Irish International is a badminton tournament, so that isn't a good target either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:09, 31 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.

Hyposomnia

[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 Sleep disorder#Insomnia where the disorder is mentioned. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target. I suggest retargeting to Sleep disorder where it appears once, or as a soft redirect to its Wiktionary entry at wikt:hyposomnia. CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 31 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.

Latina (Reykon song)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Latina (Reykon song)

Hong (disambugation)

[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 11:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"(disambiguation)" misspelled, delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 10:00, 31 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.

LiON

[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 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "LiON" nor "LiOn" are accepted abbreviations for Lithium-ion, and are confusing because they may be is mis-typing of Lion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 31 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.

Batman 4

[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 06:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a 67 IP user brought up in the discussion concerning the "Batman 5-8" redirects, the movie in question is the fifth rather than the fourth Batman movie, plus there's the reasons the nom gave in the discussion. Delete these unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 04:44, 31 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.

La Casa de las siete tumbas

[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 trainwreck but other participants are advocating simple, bold action case by case. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various redirects from individual film titles to a generic list of their country's films. Wikipedia does not have an established practice of doing this for films -- if a film doesn't have an article, then its name should usually be left either unlinked or redlinked so that people know that an article doesn't exist, and can create one if they're so inclined. A "film title to filmmaker" redirect might be useful sometimes, but there's very little need for a "film title to List-of-Country-films-of -YYYY" redirect, and we don't have an established practice of doing this for any other country.
Exclusively in the case of Argentina, however, there appear to have been a metric shit-tonne of these "film title to YYYY-list" redirects created, despite various problems. Sometimes the title is not reflected in the list at all. Sometimes the title is reflected in the list, but the list provides no additional information about the film except a repetition of its title. Sometimes the list wikilinks the same title, so that it's just functioning as a recursive redirect right back to the same list you're already on. Sometimes the list wikilinks a different spelling of the same title (e.g. differently accented, differently capitalized, English instead of Spanish title, etc.) so that its entry remains a red link even while a redirect for that same film has already led you to the list.
I've even already caught cases where a redirect led to the list, while the list led out to a proper article about the same film, which thus should have been the real redirect target; and cases where the redirect was leading to the wrong year's list; and even a case where a redirect that led to the wrong year's list and a proper article about the same film were both sitting right next to each other in the category.
Furthermore, WikiProject Film has recently deprecated its longstanding practice of deeming the base "National films" categories as "all-inclusive" categories that had to directly include all films from that country even if they had already been extensively subcategorized for genre or other characteristics -- but the sheer number of these that are sitting in Category:Argentine films is deeply impeding the process of getting that category sorted out, because the lists rarely if ever actually provide any information from which I can glean what genre subcategories to move the redirects to. So, if at all possible, I'd like permission to just zap them all on sight instead of having to keep coming to RFD with batch after batch of these -- but there are far too many of them to just batch all of them here in one shot. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like permission to just zap them all on sight instead of having to keep coming to RFD. If it were solely up to me, then this would be a no. You list multiple different types of redirect and based on what you say above the answer to all of them isn't necessarily deletion. For example, some should be retargetted to the article that has the slightly different spelling, others should be retargetted to the director, etc. Yes, some of them should be deleted but what you are proposing is too broad, especially as you haven't precisely defined the scope of what you want to delete. You are in effect proposing a temporary speedy deletion criterion, so it should meet all the requirements listed at WP:NEWCSD, but the above fails points 1 and 2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "zap" would include retargeting the redirect to somewhere other than the list if a viable redirect target can be identified, and is not (and was never intended to be) just "delete all regardless of context". But the number one most important thing here is that no matter what happens, every single one of the redirects has to be cleared out of Category:Argentine films, because that category has to be emptied out by diffusing all of its current contents into the subcategories, and it can't become a multi-day job because each individual redirect necessitates half an hour of individual investigation — I have to get all of the redirects out of the category one way or another, and I have to be able to clean out the entire category in the quickest wham-bam-next manner possible without investing more than 20 to 30 minutes total on the entire job. So if you've got some other idea that balances the urgent need to empty out the category against the need to not have to invest hours and hours into creating dozens upon dozens of batches of seven-day discussions about each individual set, I'm all ears. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally retargeting a redirect to somewhere which discusses it doesn't require discussion unless someone disagrees. But I agree that RfD isn't generally well set up for large batches of similar redirects, as we are seeing with the recent nominations of decades, centuries etc. A7V2 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:46, 31 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.

Denvilles halt & The Battle of Havant

[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 06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like while bots change the targets through double redirect fixing it should probably target Havant New railway station but neither its current target or the possible retarget above cover both Denvilles Halt (which was the name of Warblington railway station) and the Battle of Havant (which is covered at Havant New railway station). This seems like a WP:XY so it should probably be deleted. TartarTorte 00:55, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_31&oldid=1109329015"