Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2022.

Russia Sanctions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Russia Sanctions

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they are going against rule #8 in WP:RDELETE, and are unwieldly long, and no-one is likely to search all this instead of just "Wikipedia". The pageview stats show that they're not very used. Also, the creator of the pages is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [talk] 17:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. It's at least mildly plausible that a user may type that to learn more about the meaning behind the motto, but it's still fairly obscure so deletion could be preferable. Bonoahx (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC) (striked vote 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    • @Bonoahx: the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated as much as possible, so I oppose your redirect poposal. Veverve (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose retarget WP:CNR Support deletion Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops, sorry, didn't realise that would be an issue. Changing my vote to Delete per nom and others in that case. Bonoahx (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless, and used enough. Both are reasonable alternative capitalisations of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See also this somewhat related RfD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and the recent discussion they cite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 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) 19:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947. Seems like a reasonable enough (even if unlikely) search term, and someone searching this will be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 00:23, 2 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! 19:45, 7 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.

Tangan[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. The nomination changed from Delete to Disambiguate following the drafting of the disambiguation page. If there is a debate for the river as the primary topic, it can be taken up separately. One of the delete votes was against the redirection to Hand, which is now not part of the DAB. Another delete vote was because of non-English usage, however the DAB creator also created the redirects Tangan River and Tangan, Kurdistan, and any opposition to those can be taken up separately. Jay (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This word is not mentioned at the target, wikt:tangan tells me it does mean "hand" in many languages, including Malay and Indonesian, but it also a romansiation of two different Japanese words (meaning "entreaty, petition, to implore, to beg" and "Simple eye" or "one-eyed creature") and a verb form of the Spanish word "tangar" meaning "to trick" or "to swindle". Gooogle Maps tells me it's also the name of a settlement in Tajikistan, but I can't verify that in reliable sources. Wikipedia search results find primarily partial title matches for several Iranian vilages, and phrases in Indonesian or Malay. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my new comment after the second relist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous (various foreign words per nom, Tangon River per Narky Blert, and Palangan, Kurdistan per original target), but I do not believe a dab page is warranted, mainly per WP:DABDIC and that I struggle to find any English coverage that refers to either of Tangon River and Palangan, Kurdistan as simply "Tangan" (no "River", no accents). eviolite (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. We've got a number of sources that use "Tangan" (with or without "river") as the name of the river, and there's also a village whose article gives "Tangan" as synonym. Both are valid dab entries, and we're not including the Malay word for 'hand', so WP:DABDIC shouldn't concern us. The only question that I see is if there is a primary topic, and here the river certainly has a very strong claim. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote per Narky, second choice DAB per Uanfala. "Tangan" seems to be a fairly obscure alternate name for Palangan, while it's an alternate transliteration of Tangon, and so I would think the latter to be the primary topic. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but that's my read. I don't at all see the argument for deletion here. If there are multiple meanings, we disambiguate or point to one and hatnote to the others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a case for deletion. Instead of creating navigational infrastructure which will lock readers into accessing only the topics that we've explicitly included, it's better to leave it all to the search engine (first making sure the term concerned is prominently mentioned in the relevant articles). That way, when new content gets added that mentions other topics with the same name, they will remain available through the search results. That's how the reasoning goes; I haven't seen it used at RfD for deleting anything, though I do follow it myself when abstaining from the creation of redirects (however, I make sure to watch the title, because sooner or later someone else will come along and create a redirect, likely to a completely different topic, which will then necessitate disambiguation). From this vantage point, deletion is best, but disambiguation is better than redirecting: because if someone created a link to this page intending some other topic, then they'd get notified if that page were a dab and so they'd be able to both correct their link and expand the dab with the relevant entry; if the page is a redirect, that opportunity will likely be missed and the encyclopedia will end up with one more incorrect link.
    I prefer disambiguation for a few other reasons as well. First off, I see it as the default option, the neutral ground, departing from which will require some positive evidence as to why one rare name for an obscure topic should be treated as primary over an equally rare name for another obscure topic – disambiguating saves us the time of engaging with such an unexciting and unimportant question. Even if there is a primary topic, disambiguating may still be desirable, particularly if, as is the case here, the hatnote would be for an obscure alternative meaning (the village) of an obscure alternative spelling ("Tangan" for "Tangon"): if there is a hatnote here, it will clutter the screens of the two thousand readers who visit the article every year, when in fact it will be needed for probably only one or two of them. Another reason for preferring disambiguation is that a separate page can more easily accommodate more entries: it's alright to have a dab's "See also" link to Tangan-tangan, Tongan or Tanggang, but adding those to a hatnote will increase the clutter. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the search results, I've come across another village with the name. So, I've taken the liberty of drafting a dab page below the redirect. Obviously, if there's consensus for redirecting, then four of the five links from that dab page can simply be moved to a hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options being proposed here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are multiple articles that I failed to find when doing the WP:BEFORE for this nomination, I think disambiguation is the best option here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 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.

Supermassive star[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Supermassive star

Brian Pumper[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 01:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of this name in the article is from an interview, saying Brian Pumper would not be a member. Does not appear to be a valid target for this redirect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the current situation is the purpose of this discussion. (I removed the pipe at the Dogg page.)
"insignificant" As I argued above, receiving notable industry awards for his work makes him encyclopedic. Apart from that, WP:CHEAP, and deleting does not improve matters. Paradoctor (talk) 16:22, 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) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for better search results. He is mentioned in multiple articles. If an award article is a better target, then there is no single page as he is mentioned as a winner in 21st AVN Awards, and as a nominee at the 25th and 28th awards. Jay (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeting to 21st AVN Awards#Major awards makes sense as a starting point for looking up information on this entertainer while steering the reader to notable topics. The reader still retains the ability to search for pages containing this name. Rusty5231B (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results. There is no single best landing place for this search term, so search results will give readers the best overview of Mr. Pumper. -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 26 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.

List of keys on a standard US 105-key computer keyboard[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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page was originally created as a stand-alone list. I assume it was converted to a redirect as the list failed WP:NLIST, but the redirect target (a) does not currently contain the section this article tries to redirect to, (b) at least from a quick look around the time this article was set up to point to a specific section, did not contain that section at that time either, and (c) would not actually provide useful information for someone looking for a list of keys on a standard US keyboard anyway.

As such, I think this redirect should just be deleted; the only thing it does is cause confusion for the (presumably very few) users who – like me – ended up there after a web search and thought there might be useful info (the redirect page is the highlighted result, at least for me, of a Bing search for "104 vs 105 keyboard"). —me_and 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, are you suggesting reverting to this edit? Because except for this initial edit, the page has always been a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or revert?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the nominator makes a solid case for why this is harmful. British and American keyboards mentions that the UK keyboard has 105 keys, contrasting against the American keyboard that has 104 keys, so there is a case for this being misleading as well. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 8 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.

Cañon[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 withdrawn. That's what I get for only reading the edit summary of the redirect's creation, I suppose. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED; the target article's subject does not have affinity to the Spanish language. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per the article, it's an archaic British English spelling. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 8 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.

Revans Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Revans Institute

North-South divide in Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#North-South divide in Scotland

Template:CCC Team riders[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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Template:BMC Racing riders. CCC Pro team ceased to exist. Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux is not their sucessor. BMC was CCC previous name. Rpo.castro (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Due to consensus; CCC/BMC is now separate to Intermarché. therefore it redirects where it shouldn't. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:46, 7 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 Revolution of 2013[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Ukrainian Revolution of 2013

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support possible restoration/rewrite of the article that was here. The redirect target, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, does not mention the graduate institution. A second article on the institution under an old name, Picower Graduate School Of Molecular Medicine, was recently discovered, and I've given it some basic information to update (and possibly move to this title which is the current name). Given how selective it is—it admits MDs!—sourcing is quite hard to come by. Pinging Natureium who made the redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no mention at the target, lack of sources to establish notability. Veverve (talk) 15:11, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_7&oldid=1079487063"