Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 14[edit]

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

Terry Pearce[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. There were also Keep and Delete participants who supported disambiguation provided it was feasible. Some Keep and Delete votes did not touch upon disambiguation, but were limited to the current target, or a question on the primary target. Some Delete votes did not see a need for disambiguating between non-article entries. The ones who favoured disambiguation however, validated disambiguating between non-article entries per WP:DABMENTION, and referenced prior discussion outcomes. Jay (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect. Many other non-notable people with the same name exist and are mentioned at Hampstead Scientific Society#Hampstead Observatory, 2016 World Masters Athletics Championships Men#M60 2000 metres steeplechase, Australia at the 1992 Paralympic Games for Persons with Mental Handicap#Futsal, and 2015 Bracknell Forest Borough Council election.

A disambiguation page is not suitable; the search function will be more useful and maintainable if readers are looking for one of these individuals. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notcharizard, Schwede66, NealeWellington, Sammyrice, Wjemather, NZFC, NiklausGerard, Rugbyfan22, No Great Shaker, Ficaia, Alvaldi, StickyWicket, and Rhododendrites: Ping AFD participants, in line with this notification. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the AfD said that there was "no clear consensus on a redirect", WP:COMMONSENSE would support the redirect over the other people with this name, none of whom have an article either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why the redirect should go here, rather to other people with this name? BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change I think, partly because I don't really understand what's up for discussion here. The incoming links seem clean to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lugnuts and Blue Square Thing. Terry Pearce was a Test cricket umpire so the target page is entirely appropriate. We don't have any other articles about anyone with this name (or Terence Pearce) so, as Lugnuts says, the current solution is the common sense one. I fail to see how this can be an issue. Thanks for the ping, btw. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, as there are several other "Terry Pearces" mentioned in different articles, and I don't think this particular Terry Pearce is any more notable than the others. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subject was the main Terry Pearce article, there was a suitable list article to redirect to too save the article history per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe we can go from now having no article about the person to now not even having a redirect from them. There is other Terry Pearce out there but they didn't previously have an article and we should be saving the history of the previously created one.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this individual is not notable, why does previously having an article mean that they should have a redirect when it risks astonishing readers looking for the builder, the runner, or the politician? I also note that preserving this redirect will not preserve the history - that has already been deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no need for a disambiguation page between people without articles, but given this is ambiguous it should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, or create disambiguation page. It is unsurprising that some members of the cricket project would want the redirect to go to a cricket article, but none of the people mentioned in WP articles are sufficiently notable for a standalone article and there is no evidence to suggest this umpire should be the primary topic and that readers would be looking for him above any of the others; indeed most readers may be surprised to find themselves looking at a list of umpires. Arguments about article history are invalid since the article was deleted at AFD, confirming the lack of notability of the umpire; and the incoming redirects are there due to the deleted article, so they have no relevance either. A redlink is preferred in these situations. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Don't see why not; a dab page between non-articles is okay. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I supported a redirect in the AfD, but if there are other lists that include non-notable individuals by the same name, that we've recently decided this Terry Pearce isn't notable isn't a good reason to declare this Terry Peace more notable than the others. No opinion on disambiguating -- other people have a better sense of the style rules around dabs than I do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is equal support for Keep, Delete and Disambiguate. Creating a disambiguation draft will also help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No clear primary target, and there is no need for disambiguation when there are no articles. As per nom, the search function is enough. Avilich (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or Keep; now two entries and likely misspellings, more useful than search results. There should at least be a redirect/hatnote/disambiguation entry for the cricket umpire (considered notable for most of the time Wikipedia has existed[1][2] and will be again on Wikipedia or whatever replaces it), but not for the election candidate, who has never been notable according to guidelines (redirects for candidates who are elected as councillors are usually deleted); I'm not sure about the coach, if there would typically be an article or redirect there. A865 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate using the draft. There are precedents for a disambiguation page with no articles of that exact title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since none of the Terry Pearce's are notable disambiguation is not suitable, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY which says Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've unlinked the four backlinks here, per WP:REDLINK: Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability. As to this page's fate, in the absence of any notable person called Terry Pearce, delete and let the search results handle it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:40, 3 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.

Angzar[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 XML and HTML character entity references as the universally acceptable (if not universally preferred) target. Angzar is a plausible misspelling. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the redirect has now been moved to Angzarr, but I don't see how this addresses my concern. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I moved Angzar to Angzarr which is the more common spelling. It is the shorthand for "right angle with downwards zigzag arrow" and I have noted that at the Miscellaneous Technical page. Best, Btyner (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to withdraw the nomination in that case. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I'm a bit worried by this speedy closure, because Btyner shoe-horned it into the target page, which has no natural home for it. (Being unaware of this discussion, I reverted. If it is to stay, a proper home needs to be found for it.) ANGZARR is not the name of the glyph, it is a shorthand nick-name ("entity name" in Unicode.org terminology. Specifically, http://unicode.org/L2/L2003/03440-sc34-0433.pdf (p2) says Tens of thousands of graphic characters are used in publishing text, a large proportion of which have been defined in ISO/IEC 10646. Even where standard coded representations exist, however, there may be situations in which they cannot be keyboarded conveniently or accurately, or in which it is not possible to display the desired visual depiction of the characters.
To help overcome these barriers to the successful interchange of SGML and related documents, this part of ISO/IEC TR 9573 defines character entity sets for some widely used special graphic characters regularly used in the production of scientific and mathematical documents.
This is not to question Btyner's good faith or your logic in speedy closure, but rather that the assurance on which you based the closure was inadequate. If Btyner can integrate it properly (recognising that there are 100+ glyphs that will need to be given the same treatment and by which time I have to ask have we drifted into WP:NOTGUIDE territory), then I see no objection. But our timing shouldn't be driven by a word trending on Reddit.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, reopening the discussion. At this point, I'm satisfied by the confirmed assertion that people do refer to a symbol on this table as Angzarr and therefore might be looking to find its entry in the unicode block, so I'm neutral on the redirect itself. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the deletion of Angzar which appears to be a misspelling of Angzarr. As for the latter, an alternative redirect target could be List of XML and HTML character entity references. Best, Btyner (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a sensible redirect target for Angzarr. The entity is already listed there with the correctly spelled name, and it provides visitors with the broader context. The obvious solution, IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Angzarr to List of XML and HTML character entity references per Btyner and John Maynard Friedman. Retarget Angzar also to List of XML and HTML character entity references and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. Jay (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 14 June 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.

Black anther[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 06:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a translation of "Melanthera", and is not used as a common name for the plant Plantdrew (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete partial title match at best for the black anther flax lily (Dianella revoluta and Dianella admixta). I'm thinking of it as a misspelling for Black Panther but I think that's a very long stretch. --Lenticel (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or make the correction at the target article. If it is not a common name, why does the target say The generic name means "black anther."? Jay (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - noting that in scientific literature black anther most commonly refers to Black anther disease, a likely notable topic whose symptom is the development of a black anther, but does not appear related to the Melanthera genus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The term "black anther" has, as noted above, a different main use. An English translation of a scientific name is not a "common name" unless there is evidence that it is actually used as a vernacular name. I see no such evidence in this case. The danger of leaving it is that it spuriously creates an English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the translation were completely correct, this wouldn't be a viable redirect: the literal New Latin meaning of a scientific name is not normally itself a name in use. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 16 June 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.

Vandalism-only account[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. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from article namespace to project namespace. FAdesdae378 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 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.

Grec ancien[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. There's a late trend towards keep that may have resulted in a firm "keep" outcome if it were to be relisted, but since that is the effective result of no consensus I don't see the need for the extra relist. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. There is no specific connection between ancient Greek and the French language. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This doesn't seem worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I foresee this popping up from time to time in English-language sources and potentially confusing readers who don't recognize it. Redirects are cheap, and apparently this one isn't needed for anything else, so there's no benefit to deleting it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please name some occasion where this term is used. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a French term, Google search results (even set to English) are swamped with French results. But I can see a number of citations in English language books or journals to French works with this in the title, as well as in the name of one or two works of modern art executed in the style of ancient Greece. Just as English speakers might expect to encounter ancien régime from time to time, classical scholars or even, it seems, art scholars might encounter Grec ancien. Is it really necessary to prove that this occurs 'X' number of times in published English works in order to preserve a redirect? It seems to me that a redirect that is unneeded for any other purpose needs nothing more than to be a plausible search term for someone who does not know or is not certain what it refers to. Unlike most easy targets for deletion, this is not misspelled, does not have non-standard capitalization, spacing, or malformed brackets. If the term is encountered at all, this is how it will likely appear. And there is absolutely no cost to Wikipedia for keeping it around—it occupies precisely 27 bytes, literally the amount of memory required to type "#Redirect [[Ancient Greek]]". Your question plus ~~~~ requires twice as much memory. P Aculeius (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the redirect fails to meet WP:RLOTE#Examples. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius. Also per WP:RFD#KEEP number 5. Seems like it might be a plausible search term and no clear benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a special case as described by P Aculeius. RLOTE#Examples also suggests evaluating on a case by case basis. Jay (talk) 14:40, 21 June 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.

Eeweman[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. Apparently they are sometimes credited by this name per the link below, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no indication that the subject is ever referred to by this inverted name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[3] "MV结尾处制作人、作曲、作词的落款为“Eeweman”，是“Namewee”的倒写！" Txkk (talk) 23:20, 14 June 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.

Fat land parrot[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Fat land parrot

Hangkong Gongsi[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) 14:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for romanized Chinese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:22, 15 June 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.

Dumbest Member of Congress[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Dumbest Member of Congress

Small Laptop Computer[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 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirect to Netbook that does not uniquely refer to what counts as "netbooks". All sorts of computers could be called a small laptop computer. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 04:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There seem to be several products with this phrase in their name, but it does not refer to a specific category of devices. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is, as stated above, a generalized label that doesn't specifically refer to certain products. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a vague term --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 17 June 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_June_14&oldid=1097801669"