Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2022.

Delroy Atkinson[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 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atkinson is an actor with over 20 credits, so to redirect it to a cast section of one of his roles with no further information about him is not beneficial for readers. This has scope to one day be an article, but as a redirect, it does not work. – DarkGlow • 22:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. To encourage article creation if notable; to enable uninhibited search if not. (NB linked in 3 articles, not including the current target.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 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.

Direct wikipedia search from opera[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 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is nonsensical, isn't properly capitalised, and the pageview stats show that not many people are using this redirect (Still more people than expected) Quick Quokka [talk] 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless if there's a plausible reason which I'm not seeing. Bonoahx (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seemingly implausible Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Originated as what appears to have been an attempt at a how-to guide that should have been deleted. Current title is entirely unplausible and the target doesn't mention Wikipedia searching capabilities at all. eviolite (talk) 03:02, 20 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.

Download Songs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Download Songs

Download Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Download Albums

Top Albums Sales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Hot Albums

Constituent monarchies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Constituent monarchies

Sub-Nation[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) feminist #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentions in the target. Thesmp (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Administrative divisions are also known as "subnational entities," as mentioned in the lede. This does not seek like an implausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)
  • Keep per Presidentman, term is mentioned in a similar form; plausible search term. MB 17:19, 18 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.

Constitutive nations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Constitutive nations

Constitutive peoples[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete peoples are not subdivision. Thesmp (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I merged your discussions sharing targets and rationales. Hopefully that helps. Seed of コスモ (alternate account of Sonic678) 21:01, 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.

Russian land[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Russian land

Needless_Markup[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 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted for being an abusive redirect to an article that does not, in fact, discuss the nickname at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.21.253 (talk) 18:14, 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.

Folklore of Poland[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 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, Polish folklore is minimally described at the target and is almost certainly notable in its own right. signed, Rosguill talk 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the second entry was bundled only yesterday.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think the same reasons discussed above apply for the second redirect. Bonoahx (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per my reasons given above. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 18 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.

Elder Llywelyn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 27#Elder Llywelyn

Top 100 Singles[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 Top 100. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May also refer to Billboard Hot 100 or any other top 100 singles chart around the world. George Ho (talk) 08:23, 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.

Top Singles Sales[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 best-selling singles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May also refer to one of Billboard single sales charts, Oricon Singles Chart or UK Singles Sales Chart (redirects to list of #1 singles). There could be others that I'm not aware of. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of best-selling singles, which is about global sales. If someone is looking for something more specific they can search again with a more specific term or use the navigation template at the bottom of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 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.

Michelle Davis (blogger)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Michelle Davis (blogger)

Goat sucker[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 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target recently changed to Nightjar, a bird "sometimes" called "goatsuckers". Target for past 15 years had been Chupacabra which is the literal Spanish translation of "goat sucker" (clearly explained in first sentence of lead, and the bird is mentioned in a hatnote). I think it should be restored. MB 02:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added. MB 04:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed that to a once widely used term, recently seen as "goat ſucker" in the mid 17C. The second version goatsucker has existed for over twenty years, fwiw, I don't suspect the other name of a cryptid has been in wide usage for much longer than that. ~ cygnis insignis 03:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is goatsucker ever used for the Chupacabra in the English language? From a quick survey of the references, I don't see any using goatsucker; all use Chupacabra. It might be a literal translation, but that is not the same as being a name used in English. On the other hand, goatsucker is used for the nightjar. So goatsucker should redirect to nightjar. On the other hand, "goat sucker" might be better as a disambiguation page. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yep, it is verifiable, in sensationalist literature (and Forteana). I knew what the cryptid was without checking, but consider it faddish, a conflated deviation from extensive historical references to a goat sucker (prompting the same search I have undertaken more than once for 'which bird is that again?'). ~ cygnis insignis 13:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A centuries-old British and also American name for the nightjar, which I've known for over 60 years. Well-attested in standard dictionaries, see e.g. Collins, Webster 1, 2, lexico. Clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify Goat sucker as being an ambiguous term, and have Goatsucker redirect there. If the Nightjar is only "sometimes" called a goatsucker, and the Chupacabra is translated as such, I see the playing field as being level in this regard. Havradim leaf a message 12:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with that solution, it could also indicate if the name was used in reference to some species more than others. ~ cygnis insignis 07:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate per Havradim -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disambiguation is achieved with the current hatnote. Nightjar as primary topic is consistent with wikt:goatsucker. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the hatnote at the current target already serves a dab function for the cryptid --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 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.

Alleinheit[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 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. No connection between the concept of unity and the German language. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bonoahx (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Alleinheit" (that is "All-Einheit", the unity of all that is) is not a common German word. It is a terminus technicus related to pantheism and the philosophy of religion, I think. – Tea2min (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it stands, the redirect is unhelpful, and I don't see a more proper redirect target at the moment. I guess something about the concept could be mentioned e.g. at Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (compare the article de:Alleinheit at the German Wikipedia). Right now, this term isn't mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if this term is used at all in the relevant English literature. – Tea2min (talk) 07:40, 18 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.

Sadie Lane[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 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find any published, reliable sources linking the actress Erin Brown to this pseudonym. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Sadie Lane" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 20 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.

Abuelo[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. Jay (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Spanish, not all grandparents are Spanish, and this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RLOTE. "Grandparent" is a generic concept with no particular affinity for the Spanish language. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Often used in English among Latino families, as is noted at the target article. (In North America, many families call one set of grandparents by their ethnic names (e.g., Hispanic grandparents might be called abuelo and abuela or "abuelito" and "abuelita".) It is plausible to hear this term in the middle of an English sentence, and thus reasonable to have a redirect for it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep becoming more common as a loanword in English, enough so to be a plausible redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a common term used in Latino media, and english-speakers may want to know what it means. Hextor26 (talk) 00:18, 18 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.

Abuela[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 disambiguate. Jay (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from Spanish, not all grandparents are Spanish, and this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 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.

Aussie V8s[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 V8 engine#Australia. While it is not a unanimous choice, it seems like a general consensus is that this is a more appropriate target page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite ambiguous. This term can be used to refer to any Australian-built V8 powered car eg [1], not particularly (or even at all) to the V8 Supercars (as it used to be known). I don't think a retarget to any particular car, or to Automotive industry in Australia would be suitable either so I think best to delete. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No contest from me. I just always thought "Aussie V8s" meant V8 Supercars (Supercars Championship#V8 Supercars). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to V8 engine#Australia per Jay wizzito | say hello! 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said in the nom, the term generally refers to cars. See the link I gave in the nom, also [2]. I couldn't find any sources referring to engines in this way, and in my personal experience that's also true. Certainly the suggested target is only about the handful of Australian produced V8 engines but the term is used to refer to Australian cars with V8 engines, whether they be Australian or more often American. A7V2 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the V8 engine article, I see the word V8 being used in multiple places as V8 model, V8 unit, V8 configuration, V8 type, and also without a qualifier, simply as V8. Are you suggesting that "Aussie V8s" is not a term that can be used in that context? Jay (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I have never heard of anyone using the term "Aussie V8s" (and couldn't find any sources online either) to refer to something other than Australian built, V8 powered cars (or models). Given this redirect has, since it was created in April 2017, received just 88 views, 10 of which were since I nominated this, I think it's really just an extremely unlikely search term for anything. It's difficult to know what such an unlikely searcher is looking for, but I suppose it's possible that V8 engine#Australia is that. Perhaps the current target is what they are looking for (after all why else was it created)? I still prefer deletion but I think I prefer V8 engine#Australia to the current target. A7V2 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 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.

Wp1[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 Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:05, 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.

Cornis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Cornis

Bovine[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) CycloneYoris talk! 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries give the primary definition as "relating to domestic cows" or equivalent, rather than the subfamily Bovinae (which is included as a secondary definition in some dictionaries). I think this would be better turned into a disambiguation page to cover various related topics like Bovine herpesvirus etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @Hemiauchenia: “most dictionaries” is a bit of a weasel wording. i think “most people” would consider a cape buffalo or a gaur to be bovines. Also, disambigs are not for every article that has the term in the title, only for topics that are referred to by the disambig. For example, no one refers to any of the Bovine herpesviruses as simply ”bovine”. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are members of the tribe Bovini, with the latter being placed in the genus Bos closely related to cows. Who when looking up the term bovine is looking for the antelopes of the tribes Boselaphini or Tragelaphini such as the eland, which are also included in the subfamily. Does anybody call these bovines? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does. The article on Tragelaphus describes them as bovines. Plantdrew (talk) 18:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_17&oldid=1074237096"