Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2022.

Abu Farès Mosque[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 00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: different objects "Abu Fares" is not the same as "Ben Fares" and "Abu FAres" is not discussed in the target article. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:52, 14 February 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.

PopCap Games Framework[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#PopCap Games Framework

Retrograde Islam[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 00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; usage in peer-reviewed texts seems to be limited to descriptions of Wahhabism or other fundamentalist or reactionary Islamic movements and/or societies, which are not synonymous with the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 08:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Rosguill short but effective nom argument.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very loose use of the term "retrograde" at best, and an insulting one at worst (my dictionary's closest matches for the meaning likely intended here have negative connotations). A redirect existing to insult the target is sufficient grounds for deletion as that goes against our mission of objectivity. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:21, 19 February 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.

Jacarean[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. Already retargeted to Yacare caiman. @Kevmin: you shouldn't have changed the redirect's target while the discussion was still open. Please be patient next time and wait for the community to decide. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored the link to Yacare caiman.--Kevmin § 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yacare caiman (where it has already been retargeted to). Jay (talk) 03:02, 22 February 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.

William Patrick Gold[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#William Patrick Gold

Binding antibody unit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Binding antibody unit

Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics

George Traut Austin[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, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I can somewhat understand having redirects to wiktionary (as dicdefs are out of scope, but can be useful for jargon), why would we redirect for biographies? Either a person is notable, and should have an article here; or they aren't notable, but then we shouldn't outsource to a different site with different standards. This seems like a backdoor mechanism to have biographies of people included without having to care about our policies. It also obscures what would otherwise be redlinks iff the person is notable.

Also nominated for the same reason are all other similar pages:

However, it is completely unclear to me what syntax to use to group multiple soft redirects under one RfD, so any help is welcome!

Fram (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per AfD discussion; sister projects don't count as "different websites" like Facebook or YouTube do. With that out of the way, there's no reason why the DICDEF case for Wiktionary as cited by the nom can't generalize. I created the Dugdale page back in 2019 as it was on Special:WantedPages or something similar, and his links were/are all in citations for the species he had described. Since the nom says that the Wiktionary stuff can be useful for jargon, these citations can themselves be useful for biologists looking for other species described by the same person who would not otherwise be notable enough for a full standalone article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't "sister" websites count as different websites? They have different people, different rules, different purposes. Just because the WMF is involved with them as well is not really a good reason to give them preferential treatment. Using this backdoor to have articles for people who aren't notable enough for enwiki isn't something which should be encouraged but should be stopped. What next, soft redirects to this page because having 300+Kb of quotes from copyrighted works isn't allowed on enwiki, but could be useful for someone, and it is a sister project after all? Fram (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram The fact that the WMF is involved is exactly why we should give them preferential treatment, which we do in fact already do; "country codes" and sister project codes like TT: and Q: are treated very similarly to normal namespaces on enwiki even when that leads to problems like the inability to have a "Template talk:" shortcut or having to tweak titles such as Q. Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!. Sure, they might have different policies regarding stuff like copyright, etc., but those are relative minutiae compared to the principles all of the WMF-sphere shares, and it is quite incorrect to say that they all have "different purposes"; all WMF projects are about disbursing knowledge to humanity, and keeping soft redirects such as these aid in that purpose as others have said and as you yourself noted with Wiktionary. If I were wrong about this, they wouldn't be called "sister projects" and be displayed on the Main Page. In essence, to answer your question about the Wikiquote example I would use the blond-hair "Yes" meme guy if such usage were encyclopedic, which is what these redirects in question are; indeed, guidelines dictate the use of sister-project links when they are useful to the reader. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note only the first redirect was tagged and correctly listed, which I've now fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a group. Short on time right now, but: The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). Thus, Template:Wikispecies redirect exists for any occurrence that may arise in the mainspace. That aside, I recently began sorting through wikispecies:Category:Taxa by author to determine if any other worthy cases exist; e.g. David John Lawrence Agassiz is mentioned in ~50 articles, but we do not (perhaps yet) cover him in the encyclopedia. A debate on the merit of the template itself might be due (though if it is deemed inappropriate then we would effectively never soft redirect to Wikispecies). Alternatively, whether or not a particular redirect meets an adequate bar might be something to discuss. However, I strongly oppose wholesale writing off of this sort of redirect as a concept. Lastly, I strongly disagree with the notion that the template is only useful for species themselves (though that is a bit out of scope anyhow). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to a local page. Sister project links, just like external links, should provide some value for those looking for information about the topic in an encyclopaedia. In the case of a dictionary definition that benefit is usually clear. In the case of a link to WikiSpecies from an encyclopaedia article about a species (or genus, etc) that benefit is also clear, similarly for a link from a biography from someone who named multiple species to WikiSpecies is clearly useful. Someone looking up the name of a person on Wikipedia is looking for a biography of them and/or an encyclopaedia article about whatever it is they are notable for, so the question is whether the information at the target is useful for someone in that position, and having looked at the targets I think it is. If they are mentioned in greater detail somewhere on en.wp (I haven't looked) then retargetting there would be preferable but the soft redirects are better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. unless there's a better place to retarget them, or any individual one. I suspect about 1/3 could be used as a start for articles, as in the instance mentioned above. Tbis is what WP:REDLINK means--it's anargument for keep, not delete. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 17 February 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.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ[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 (default to revert/unrefine). There was clear consensus in August to keep at Body of Christ, no section link, despite the lack of an explicit mention; I don't see consensus here to overturn that. Thryduulf makes a good point that a DAB may be viable here, and this close does not prevent any user from creating one. Normally a no-consensus close would mean that we keep, but, in this case, as the current target was picked in knowing defiance of the previous RfD, the default is to revert. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what this redirect is supposed to refer to. It also has capital letters which may designate an organisation which is not mentioned in the article. The expression is only alluded to once in the article ("The Body of Christ, broken in the sacred liturgy, can be seen, through charity and sharing, in the faces and persons of the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters"), and not within the section targetted. The redirect seems too vague to do anything with it. I think therefore the redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Disambig There is an organisation with this exact name [1] (often abbreviated "B.A.S.I.C.") who appear at first look to be non-notable, but some people associated with them are notable (e.g. Bob Warren (basketball)). Their website uses the term "Body of Christ" a couple of times in their about section in a manner that suggests it's the name of something specific, but I don't know what. Uncapitalised, "Brothers and sisters in Christ" appears to be a term meaning "fellow Christians" or possibly "fellow active Christians", and this is the meaning that I think is intended at Christian fraternity#Concepts. Complicating matters further, there are multiple mentions of "The Christadelphians (Brothers and Sisters in Christ)", but it is not mentioned at the Christadelphians article at all, and Maria de Lourdes Martins Cruz#Biography mentions that "In 1989 she returned [to East Timor] to start a lay order the Brothers and Sisters in Christ." which is a different organisation to the first one which was founded in the United States in 2016. Women's Ordination Worldwide#History mentions yet another organisation - "In 2001, Ireland's Brothers and Sisters in Christ (now merged with We Are Church Ireland)...". I'm getting the impression that there is scope for a disambiguation page here, but I don't understand enough to write it. I would say that the term is primary topic for the lowercase, with a hatnote to a disambig at this capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: the B.A.S.I.C. website probably uses capital letters at "Body of Christ" as a form of honorific, the ones used when referring to something held in high regards. Veverve (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have no other target to disambiguate with. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Narky Blert: What do you mean no other target? I list multiple ones directly above your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert (alt): I have re-nominated the redirect, so invoking a previous consensus to keep the redirect is incongruous since the debate is now re-opened. Veverve (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • use for an article There's an actual church by that name. "Body of Christ" despite the capitals is nott he name of an organization, and I do not think it ever has been used for the name of an organization. It's part of the fundamental Christian doctrine, as capitalized as such. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: it appears you did not proparlt format your answer. Could you fix it? Veverve (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 19 February 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.

Party foul[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Not every word combination found in urban dictionary and Wiktionary should become a soft redirect here: "party foul" isn't really commonly used on enwiki, and the meaning isn't so obscure that an explanation is needed either. Fram (talk) 10:17, 14 February 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:BC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#Wikipedia:BC

Ângulo[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the nomination below the rationale is WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Portuguese or Spanish.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 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.

Ángulo[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Portuguese or Spanish. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 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.

Delen[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Dutch. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 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.

Diamètre[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to French. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to Google Translate, this is French for Diameter. I see no reason why a French word should redirect to an English article.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 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.

Geometrisk ort[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 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Swedish. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 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.

Analytisk geometri[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 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; no affinity to Swedish. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 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.

Beckton Riverside station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#Beckton Riverside station

Washingon state legislature[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 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This exists as a alternate capitalization redirect but it's also a misspelling that while possible does not seem to be likely based on the pageview numbers, so I recommend it be deleted. TartarTorte 03:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Feels somewhat inane as the search function already has a "Did you mean" function that recognises Washingon as a typo of Washington. We don't redirect Londo, Londno, Lodnon, etc. to London. Bonoahx (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all and search function. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:02, 16 February 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_February_14&oldid=1074747816"