Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23

December 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2022.

John Grimm[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.

Retarget John Grimm to John M. Grimm
Retarget John "Reaper" Grimm to Doomguy#Film (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Grimm → Doom (franchise)#Reception (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
John "Reaper" Grimm → Doom (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirects not mentioned in the target article. Without context, readers looking for these terms will both have no idea why they were redirected here, as well as not find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doom (film) mentions John Grimm, and so does List of actors who have played video game characters#Doom characters. Multiple mentions of people or characters named John Grimm on enwiki, but only one with an article - John M. Grimm. Jay 💬 16:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget John "Reaper" Grimm to Doomguy#Film (a section about the character), and wikilink some of the above mentioned mentions to this redirect. John Grimm should probably retarget to John M. Grimm with a hatnote, but potentially it could be done the other way around (target to Doomguy#Film as well and hatnote John M. Grimm). A7V2 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget John "Reaper" Grimm to Doomguy#Film and John Grimm to John M. Grimm. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Mathematics and God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 31#Mathematics and God

Nonexistence of God[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 Atheism. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistence of God → Existence of God (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I get that this redirect is an antonym for its target, but since the target article is more specific to the existence of God rather than the non-existence of God, I don't think the redirect is targeting the right article. Should this be redirect be targeting an article that's more specific to the subject of the redirect, such as Atheism? Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Atheism, per the reasoning given by nom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 24 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Mayor of Calais[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 List of mayors of Calais. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Calais → Mayor of the Calais Staple (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading redirect. While Calais has mayors now, the "Mayor of the Calais Staple" was not a mayor in this sense, nor an actual mayor of the city of Calais, but a kind of leader/judge of the merchants only. People looking for info on the mayor of Calais should not be redirected to a somewhat similarly named 15th century role (of very limited and mainly ceremonial importance anyway). Fram (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Calais#Politics which contains information on the mayor and city government. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of mayors of Calais per Shhhnotsoloud. I didn't see the list when I initially voted. This is a more appropriate target IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page was only 6 minutes old when I saw it was here - it wasn't finished. Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was your third attempt to create it, and this incarnation was indeed young. Fram (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of mayors of Calais which is the obvious primary topic, and which has a hatnote to the other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to modern-day Calais seemed like a no-brainer to me, but then I double-checked what Google Books returns for mayor of Calais and there seems to be a whole lot of this English historical stuff, so maybe disambiguation is appropriate. We could later see from the traffic data whether we need to short-circuit it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of mayors of Calais as {{R from list topic}} per Shhh. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Aayiram Muthangaludam Thenmozhi[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 22:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aayiram Muthangaludam Thenmozhi → Aayiram Muthangaludan Thenmozhi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Deletion. This spelling is not used anywhere. All sources found on the internet and a Google search use 'n' only. Page has not much history. The page List of Tamil films of 2012 incorrectly used this spelling in the past. The source it uses to support it uses an 'n' only. DareshMohan (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pointless typo. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Muthangaludam also makes literary sense, and can easily be typed as a mistake. A little pointless for this to be deleted I feel. The spelling is also used on the most popular movie site in the world, IMDb [1] - Neutral Fan (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutral Fan. Plausible typo. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plausible and harmless misspelling. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutral fan, unfortunately. A user finding this first on IMDb may copy the title and try searching here. But if it's fixed at IMDb, then we have an argument for deletion as inaccurate. Jay 💬 08:42, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Death of everything[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Death of everything

Washington D.C. press corps[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Washington D.C. press corps

Kabalikat ng Bayan sa Kaunlaran[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 💬 08:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabalikat ng Bayan sa Kaunlaran → National Unity Party (Philippines) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned it target. Searching finds a Facebook page that says this is a youth organization in a district of Manila. Redirecting to the article on a national party is not particularly helpful. MB 01:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to this source the two are unrelated. The current redirect is for a local political party while the target is a major national party. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:49, 23 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Doge[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. No clear consensus has emerged after 2 relists and a fair amount of discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Doge → Template:Infobox officeholder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete because the redirect is unused, doesn't make sense, and is potentially offensive to officeholders. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to {{Infobox royalty}} and actually use it in articles.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is it offensive? You do realise that a Doge was effectively the head of state of some of the most important historical countries like Venice and Genoa? As such it's an important public office, and it makes perfect sense to have an infobox named after it. FlagSteward (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn’t know about that, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not offensive at all, but I'm not sure that this redirect is helpful. Articles for particular Doges don't necessarily use {{infobox officeholder}}; some use it, but many others use {{infobox royalty}} instead. Why redirect to the former rather than the latter? – Scyrme (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s another problem with it. Should doges use officeholder or royalty? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination rationale was modified. Courtesy ping FlagSteward and Scyrme.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Retargeting might suggest that articles for Doges should use "infobox royalty" instead of "infobox officeholder". I don't edit those articles and I'm not familiar with the differences between the two infobox templates, so I can't comment on which should be encouraged. Perhaps some relevant WikiProjects should be notified and asked to comment on this? May also be a good idea to ping the editors who maintain those templates, if there are any who regularly do so. – Scyrme (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just notified WP:ROYAL and WP:ITALY of this. TartarTorte 16:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. I would always be pragmatic in these things - if there's features of one infobox that work better, then use that one. But in theory, although the doges had some of the trappings of royalty (you could say the same of the palace of US presidents), they were elected rather than hereditary so were more like presidents-for-life than royalty. So I would just leave it as it is at officeholder, especially as we've established that the proposer has no subject expertise. FlagSteward (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert, Jonesey95, and Primefac: You've edited {{Infobox royalty}} and {{Infobox officeholder}} a number of times relatively recently, so I thought maybe you could help or might know someone who can. Would it be be better for "Infobox doge" to redirect to "royalty" or "officeholder", based on the differences in function between these templates?

If there is no practical difference, should the redirect be deleted to avoid implying that doge-related articles should use one rather than the other? – Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, edits I make to templates (in particular infoboxes) are more often than not implementing a technical change, TFD consensus, or similar. As such, I have no real opinions on the target of this redirect, though Jonesey95 makes some valid points below that should be considered. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment responding to ping (I have an opinion on whether it should be kept but will not !vote here to avoid any appearance of responding to canvassing). This redirect appears to have been stable as a redirect to {{infobox officeholder}} since its creation in 2008, and it is not used in any articles. If it were to be used, the current target makes the most sense to me, since a doge was an "elected lord and head of state" (per the article), not "anyone having royal connections" (from {{Infobox royalty}}). I would expect a strong reason to change 14 years of stable history for this redirect, and I am not seeing one. The doge articles using Infobox royalty should probably be fixed to use Infobox officeholder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! Apologies if pinging like this was not appropriate.

Some of the stability could be down to low usage (ie. presently, none); makes it easy to miss, so it's not necessarily a strong reason to keep. Looking at articles that use "royalty" instead of "officeholder", a number of them use the parameters |religion= and |dynasty= or |house=. eg. Leonardo Loredan. Looking at the documentation for {{infobox officeholder}} I wasn't able to find an equivalent; in-fact the notice at the top states that the former was intentionally removed in 2017. This could be an issue with swapping the templates.

Doges were often elected by and from the nobility; in-fact, in Venice the council that elected the doge eventually became entirely heriditary, after which it was comparable to an elective monarchy, unless I'm mistaken. The case can be made for "royal connections", at least for particular doges.

I'm now leaning towards delete. The template isn't used and it's existence suggests that its target should be used on relevant articles (if not the redirect itself), however it seems to me like whether a particular doge has sufficient "royal connections" needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis according to the historical and geographical context. – Scyrme (talk) 20:03, 27 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pragmatic atheism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Pragmatic atheism

Blended networking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 31#Blended networking

Workgroups vs domains[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 22:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workgroups vs domains → Computer network (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Workgroups vs. domains → Computer network (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Workgroup or domain → Computer network#Workgroups vs domains (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target article mentions "workgroup" once and "domain" 6 times, but in none of the cases is it a comparison of the two. In addition, Workgroup and Domain lead to different pages, potentially causing WP:XY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, essay titles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Workgroup (computer networking) has a (unsourced) line that contrasts workgroup with a domain. Jay 💬 18:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The last in the list links to a section, but looking back at the history to revisions from around the time the redirect was created I wasn't able to find a section or anchor with that title, so I'm not sure why it was created. The other two were unreferenced explainer-type articles, both by the same author, that were later blanked and redirected. I don't think the content was merged. The content was blogish, so didn't really belong on Wikipedia anyway. These titles resemble a search term for someone looking for a site like WikiDiff; best to allow uninhibited search. – Scyrme (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:47, 25 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

December 23[edit]

John Grimm[edit]

Mathematics and God[edit]

Nonexistence of God[edit]

Mayor of Calais[edit]

The Queen Consort[edit]

A Jobber[edit]

Heliostropolis, Etc.[edit]

The Prince Consort[edit]

Aayiram Muthangaludam Thenmozhi[edit]

Death of everything[edit]

Washington D.C. press corps[edit]

Kabalikat ng Bayan sa Kaunlaran[edit]

Template:Infobox Doge[edit]

Pragmatic atheism[edit]

Blended networking[edit]

Workgroups vs domains[edit]