Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2022.

2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)[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 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for this. Can be created when information is known. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and according to this, qualification will not begin until 2023. GiantSnowman 21:18, 28 March 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.

Template:Rotten[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) 06:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make disambiguation page for Template:Rotten Tomatoes (move discussion in progress), Template: Rotten Tomatoes data, and Template: RT prose Indagate (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and skip making it a disambiguation page, in my opinion. We don't need it to be a link to anything since "Rotten" by itself is not clearly connected with the review aggregator. Only 31 articles appear to use it, and they can be updated to use a more descriptive template name. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erik after replacing usages. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. I agree with Erik that "Rotten" per se is not specific enough to Rotten Tomatoes to warrant a disambiguation page.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 18:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've just replaced the existing 32 transclusions of this redirect [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 20 April 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.

Salsa sauce[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. ✗plicit 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa is never called "salsa sauce"; page was redirected in 2013, but it doesn't feel like a useful redirect since this term is never used to describe salsa. Delete or keep? Colgatepony234 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 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.

Snake Island massacre[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. ✗plicit 00:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ukraine nor Russia appear to be claiming any deaths during the attack on the island at this point, so "Snake Island Massacre" seems to be an inappropriate redirect. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 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.

White Russian Americans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#White Russian Americans

Template:Original research span[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. Withdrawn in favor of the new template, although the new template page should probably get a doc page at some point (which I'm probably not good enough at templates to do). Hog Farm Talk 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target template does not do what the other "span" templates such as {{citation needed span}} or {{failed verification span}} do. Since the target template apparently doesn't have the span functionality (I've tried), this shouldn't redirect here. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal of turning this misleading redirect into a non-misleading template. Veverve (talk) 18:12, 27 March 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.

Management services organization[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 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term, capitalised or not, does not occur at Outsourcing and may be ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom., very ambiguous. Veverve (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate redirects. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 1 April 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.

GHOST (vessel)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#GHOST (vessel)

Osteopathic medicine[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 Osteopathy. Jay (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this target Osteopathy? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 27 March 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.

Triangulare[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Triangulare

=U=[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#=U=

Northern Irish nationalism[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 procedural close due to sockpuppetry. Any editor in good standing may renominate these pages if they wish. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Northern Irish nationalism between Irish and Ulster nationalisms, the term is clearly ambiguous. And retarget Nationalist (Northern Ireland) to this disambiguation page. Olchug (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seeing as this discussion was largely socks talking to each other, would a procedural close be in order? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 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.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church[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 with no prejudice to a move discussion being opened for Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [3] @Veverve: Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: Is there a reason this shouldn't be closed as retarget (or, rather, that the DAB page shouldn't be moved to this title per WP:DABNAME)? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to see more than one participant in a deletion discussion besides the nominator. I've closed deletion discussions that only had one but I prefer to see more participants before choosing whether or not to delete a page. Other closers might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Dab page as Jay said Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:10, 29 March 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]

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. MBisanz talk 19:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd was the elder of two brothers called Llywelyn, but the only instances of these two terms (both of which have previously been titles of this article) seem to be in running text where a sentence needs to specify which of two Llywelyns is being referred to, e.g. here for "elder Llywelyn" and here for "Llywelyn the elder". The first example refers to these brothers, but the second refers to Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, so the redirect target is not the only possible "elder Llywelyn". (In fact, the first page of Google Books results for "elder Llywelyn" is mostly made up of references to Llywelyn the Great, not Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd.) Ham II (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nom. Multiple sources use these terms to describe people so they are plausible search terms, that they are used for multiple people means we need to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: That was actually meant to be an argument for deleting the redirects; sorry for not being clear. Llywelyn (disambiguation) doesn't cover any of the aforementioned people (rather counterintuitively) so the closest thing would be Llywelyn § Personal names: historical. That currently mentions Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd but not his younger brother. Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd do appear there, and I suppose the order of seniority is clear because their dates are given, but it's not as if either of these terms is used as a proper name. Ham II (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you intended deletion, but your argument makes it clear that these names should be disambiguated somewhere. Whether that is Llywelyn (disambiguation) or a specific one at either of the titles nominated is less important, but if there is a good reason why they aren't covered at the existing page then it would seem best to create a new one. Disambiguation guarantees that people can find who they are looking for by giving appropriate context, search results (which may be several clicks/taps away depending on device, search method and account type) by contrast are not guaranteed and even if the relevant articles do appear there is no guarantee that the provided context will enable readers to reliably pick the correct article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think someone's going to read "Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had been a much more mighty ruler than his grandson. But yet he had never obtained, had hardly ever aspired to, so formal a position in the feudal hierarchy. The elder Llywelyn had generally been content to style himself 'Prince of North Wales.'" (a string of text which appears in a lot of the Google Books results) and fail to realise that the "elder Llywelyn" is the person referred to earlier as Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. It's only in contexts like this that these phrases are used. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added 'Elder Llywelyn' which was changed to 'Llywelyn the Elder', but both redirects are unnecessary as Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd would be the correct naming for the article. There is confusion as to who is who here, Llywelyn Fawr existed in the history books, and the name has since been adopted by 'Llywelyn the Great' as the literal translation, however 'Llywelyn Gwych' would be 'great' in a literal sense of the word. But to reiterate, both Elder Llywelyn & Llywelyn the elder article searches which are now redirect pages, they should both be deleted. Also, the original naming of the article Llywelyn the Elder ap Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd is unnecessarily long and the original article name which was the cause the redirects, that too should be deleted as it is a confusing name which blends both English and Welsh incorrectly, Llywelyn's name was Llywelyn Fawr (the elder is an English translation). Again, I would like to bring up the case of Llywelyn the Great using Llywelyn Fawr's name incorrectly as that should be amended too, they are 2 different people who's names have been lost in translation over centuries and that should be stated through the redirect search engine, instead of having Llywelyn the Great borrowing 'Fawr' in his article search, the name should be redirected to Llywelyn Fawr who with referenced searches held the naming in the 13th century. Please see Talk:Llywelyn the Great#Llywelyn 'Fawr'? for sourced information regarding the argument. Cltjames (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames: If you really want to resolve the issue of the Llywelyn Fawr redirect (and I think its current target is correct), I'd guess that the best thing to do would be to start a formal RfC at Talk:Llywelyn the Great – a step up from your existing talk page section there. If you do, please ping me in as I might not be watching. I'd continue to argue that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth/Llywelyn Fawr/Llywelyn the Great (all the same person) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Elder Llywelyn was created by Cltjames, and Llywelyn the elder was created by Serial Number 54129. The former was the page's title for less than a day, and the latter was the page's title for about a month. I'm going with the different talk page conversations that seem to imply that these redirect titles are not actual terms, but helpful (short) titles that were used only within enwiki to distinguish the subject from Llywelyn the Great. And now they realize that the redirect titles are misnomers. Jay (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I realise nothing of the sort, and your mind reading is, of course, wrong, as well as an implicit exercise in bad faith. Cheers! SN54129 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussions participants who are in consensus would be Cltjames and Ham II. My reading of your comment at Talk:Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd: The only redirect that's actually important here, to me, is that Llwelyn Fawr and the Great are shown as being the same individual; which did not mention about the Elder redirects, was that you are either fine with their suggestions, or had no opinion on the Elder redirects. I may have misunderstood your usage of smileys. You may want to rephrase what you meant there. Jay (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Realize" is an extremely :loaded word. SN54129 22:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:51, 27 March 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.

∾[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. MBisanz talk 19:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Another Wiktionary redirect from Neel.arunabh that targets an empty Wiktionary page. The current target here is completely inadequate containing only the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to add a definition. Unless a proper definition is added this should be retargeted to something local or deleted 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this can be closed as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS now. Paradoctor (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) 22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results, where the link to Wiktionary will be on the right hand side with "Results from sister projects". Another use for the inverted lazy S not yet mentioned is in combination with L, as described in that article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:51, 27 March 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.

Areo Magazine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Areo Magazine

High Princess (Stache)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#High Princess (Stache)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_27&oldid=1085473659"