Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2022.

Mother of Pride[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Mother of Pride

Retard United[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. In keeping with WP:NOTBURO, I'm going to just G8 speedy Retard United FC (dependent on this page as an avoided double redirect). If anyone objects, I'm happy to reöpen, bundle, and relist. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this team is not mentioned in targeted section. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 9 July 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.

Revolutionary Mexico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Revolutionary Mexico

Rocktober[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Rocktober

Roofie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Roofie

UNited Nations[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 00:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely miscapitalization Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, anyone typing that will get to the page anyway. CMD (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Low enough usage, the few hits it does get would most likely be solved by the search bar before hitting go anyway. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking a use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:16, 11 July 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.

Vietnamese in China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Vietnamese in China

Fu*k[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 speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#3. Nomination rationale was solely unfounded aspersions that the redirect was being used to censor things on Wikipedia, and all the !votes are keeps. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED No significant history on the page. HurricaneEdgar 12:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If it is to be kept, it might be better to retarget it at an article or section covering the censorship of swearing. That said, I'm pretty neutral on whether it should be kept at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Masked usages of "fuck" are quite common, including "fu*k", making this a useful search term/redirect. And WP:CHEAP. And while still keeping in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF, there's also F***, F**k, and F*ck that redirect to Fuck. I'm not sure how WP:NOTCENSORED applies since we're not censoring anything and are literally *un*-censoring this masked swear by redirecting to the full swear. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to something about censorship of swearing. The existence of this redirect does not censor Wikipedia. Deleting it arguably would, since it is a string of characters that does get used to refer to the target topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Used plenty as a censor - could be a realistic search term. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:34, 10 July 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.

Owlsley[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Owlsley

United States Olympic national soccer team[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 between the soccer teams the US sends to the Olympics. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic soccer teams, despite nominally U-23, may have up to three players who are over the age of 23. Consequently, Olympics squads are not really analogs of the U-23 squad, even though the U-23s make up the majority of the team. A redirect is then misleading. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States women's national soccer team. "United States Olympic national soccer team" could refer to the men's team (which is a modified U-23), but it most likely refers to the WOMEN'S NATIONAL TEAM, which in the United States tends to get quite a bit more coverage than the men during the Olympics. There's also not quite a real article on the U.S. men's Olympic soccer teams, so I don't see a need to dabify at the moment. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the U-23 article for the men's under-23 team to the Olympic team for the aforementioned reasons by Iseult. Rylesbourne (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Iseult is proposing that we make a page move, given that United States Olympic national soccer team is currently a redirect. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I would support moving the United States U-23 soccer team to the Olympic team article, because the women's senior team represents the USWNT in the Olympics. Rylesbourne (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Turn the page into a disambiguation page and put links to both the men's under-23 team and women's senior team. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 10:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - makes the most sense. GiantSnowman 10:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: It could refer to the men's Olympic team (which is a version of the under-23 team), or the women's team (where the senior women's team play). We shouldn't presume to know which of the two someone would be looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 13 July 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.

IRC networj[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. Ultimately true-typo redirects will always be a line-drawing question, and it seems here the consensus is that the line is a bit south of this particular typo. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo; networj does not exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because J vs. K typos are absolutely plausible; J and K are adjacent letters on the keyboard. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible and uncommon. Not worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the J and K are next to each other there are multiple switches which would be just as valid if we use that logic. For example IRC networl, IRX network, and IRC betwork have one letter replaced with another right next to it and there are plenty more. I believe unless networj can be shown to be a common mistake it’s not needed.--70.24.248.109 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - A google search for "networj" (then clicking on the "Yes, REALLY networj, not network" link) comes up with a fair number of technical forum posts and resumes with this typo. Doing the same for "networl" does not, interestingly enough; every google result I see appears to be intentional. Same for "betwork". Strange as it seems, "networj" does appear to be a far more common typo than the others... or at least it's easier to find examples via google. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the typing patterns for this with a couple of fast typing styles; the way a typist's fingers move when typing "network" on a QWERTY keyboard (by far the most commonly used layout in English), "j" and "m" are the only plausible typos for "k" (and "m" is fairly unlikely in the most common typing style, being most likely to occur when using more fringe typing techniques). For example, "l" is unlikely as a typo because the typist would probably have either their middle or ring finger there, blocking the movement of the next finger along onto the "k" – and if they were typing more slowly and had moved it back, they'd have a finger directly over "k" and thus would be unlikely to hit the wrong position. So I'm not surprised that "networj" is the most common typo for this word. --ais523 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible typo that would just clutter up Cirrus Search and Visual Editor suggestions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:08, 9 July 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.

Agaricus urinascens[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 moot. Redirect has been turned into a stub article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, as the redirect topic is a valid species and not a synonym of the target species. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Esculenta's reasoning. I haven't seen this kind of redirect with the plant articles I've been working on so this is something I'm going to keep an eye out for. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Agaricus, where the species is mentioned. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete under REDYES or retarget as a {{R from species to genus}}. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirecting to genus doesn't seem to make sense, considering the outcome of a similar species to genus redirect RfD discussion last month: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Parmotrema tinctorum. The name is "mentioned" in the genus article in that it is merely listed as one of many species in the genus, but, annoyingly, it is blue-linked, which deceives the reader. A redlink will prevent the reader from circularly redirecting back to the genus page for more non-information, and will encourage the creation of a proper article for the species. Esculenta (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there isn't an article for this species it should be a redlink. Tagging with {{R from species to genus}} and also {{R taxon with possibilities}} is better than nothing, but since this has been brought to RfD I think the best outcome is deletion (and then whoever actually creates an article gets credited for its creation). Plantdrew (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Esculenta and PlantDrew. They are species article experts, and if they say these are normally deleted, then this should probably be deleted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turned into stub with three refs, which possibly took less time than all the discussion above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:52, 16 July 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.

Ha-young[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. A given name SIA has been created at this title. Thanks to Shhhnotsoloud for the draft. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Hayoungs/Ha-youngs/Ha youngs. No clear justification for a special redirect to this actress. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate by creating a given name article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellohi!: quick note that if we go that route, we're collapsing all Hayoung homonyms into one romanization. Iseult Δx parlez moi 08:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or hatnote?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:51, 9 July 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.

Ivan Pavlovsky (gymnast)[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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was inappropriately created immediately after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Pavlovsky was closed as Delete. –dlthewave ☎ 16:40, 1 July 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) 07:49, 9 July 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.

Where the hell is Waldo?[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 12:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the profanity? TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No apparent RL usage that I can see Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym at best --Lenticel (talk) 09:43, 13 July 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.

The security[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#The security

Pure bullshit[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 speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#1. No intelligible rationale to take any action was provided. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "pure"? TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless, a common enough usage in the real world. BD2412 T 17:35, 9 July 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.

Christian Sharia[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! 06:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Christian Sharia" is not discussed or mentioned in the target article. It is also an unlikely search term. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in some form. The notion of a "Christian Sharia" is used enough in the real world, but I think it refers to Christian fundamentalism more generically than to Dominionism specifically. BD2412 T 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected to vote for deletion, but BD2412's rationale seems right. I then thought of Theonomy for the target page, but wikt:Christian sharia says Dominionism, which in Wikipedia redirects to the current target; and indeed that appears the be the wider term, which we should therefore keep. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google confirms it is a term in common use, and the target appears to be correct. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 14 July 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.

斯大林[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#斯大林

Hitler, Adolf 1889-1945[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Hitler, Adolf 1889-1945

The new Bernanke[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#The new Bernanke

Yellen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Yellen

The new Yellen[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 03:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reference to Janet Yellen; however, this isn't a nickname for Powell that people use, at least as far as I can tell. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Or redirect to Janet Yellen if must). Not used to describe Powell. Skynxnex (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dont retarget to Yellen, its not referring to her that would be an even worse target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the term is nonexistent in use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term seems to be used once in a single routers article: [1], and even here it's not really suggested that this should be a way of referring to Janet Yellen, it's just a sentence comparing her old views to new views. Obviously Jerome Powell is a nonsense target, but it doesn't look like there's any need for this redirect at all. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 14 July 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_July_9&oldid=1098772439"