Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2023.

Caroline of Nassau[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 💬 07:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify - Ambiguity between Princess Caroline of Nassau-Usingen and Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau, among others. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Stolen election conspiracy theories[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. After two relists, editors remain evenly divided amid various alternatives. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar rationale to my deletion request for "Election denial" and similar, although I am more on the fence as to whether this should be a redirect to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Stop the Steal. Not sure if this redirect would be too WP:RECENTIST or U.S.-centric, but it is likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for someone searching for this - and much more helpful than the current redirect, which links to a section of the page that no longer exists. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, delete, or create a list?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target articles specifically refers to elections, and contains the analysis "Such theories tend to get more traction among election losers in society...". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

To do the needful[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. Editors are split between keep, retargeting to consolidate wiktionary redirects, and deleting. This close is without prejudice to attempts to consolidate the wiktionary redirect as a WP:BOLD edit, as it is not clear that keep !voting editorrs necessarily oppose this. signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Doing the needful[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. No consensus between the status quo and slight changes in target that from a reader's perspective would barely differ from the status quo. This close is without prejudice to someone cleaning up the chain of targets that the redirect points to, as it has not been discussed exhaustively. signed, Rosguill talk 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: totally harmless, redirects are cheap. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got a request at WP:AFC/RC, and it was a proper target, which is my usual base for accepting (the request is enough evidence of use in most cases). I may need to be stricter on soft redirects per WP:SSRT, then? (Good to know, for all the time I spend around redirects I think this is the first time I've created a soft redirect; semi-related question, can a redirect target a soft redirect, since you get stopped on the soft redirect page anyway?) Anyway, this was originally a request to redirect to Indian English#Vocabulary, which the parent redirect of Do the needful originally targeted, but I figured the wiktionary page was more useful for readers. I also based this off the recent RFD including Swiping left and Swiping right, which were inflected forms that got turned into redirects. I'll abstain from this discussion for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to meet the criteria at Template:Wiktionary redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – it's a bad idea to have loads of wiktionary redirects, but I think this one crosses the bar of "useful phrase with helpful Wiktionary entry". J947 † edits 00:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Do the needful, which is also a soft redirect to Wiktionary. We don't need multiple Wiktionary redirects for the same term. - Eureka Lott 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not deleted, retarget to wikt:doing the needful. I'm ambivalent otherwise, I don't really see much use for it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Extractive industry[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 Natural resource#Extraction. Jay 💬 07:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect currently sends searchers for the general term "extractive industry" to the article for "extractivism", a specific academic conception of extractive industry (and in some cases other industry as well), analagous to terms such as "prison-industrial complex". In my view the redirect is clearly inappropriate, but I am uncertain on what the solution should be and would appreciate thoughts. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a stand it its good for now -- we could add the Template:Redirect with possibilities to signal if there is a more diverse meaning. But if we needed to I could see a lightly referenced listical/dab page, like we did for: Triple planetary crisis -- where its a cited stub, mostly intended to redirect people to a bunch of related articles (i.e. extractivism, industrial agriculture, mining, etc -- the challenge is that a well done list like that, requires a fair amount of nuance, and most of the content is not set up to describe those industries as extractive (part of the reason I didn't chose another redirect), Sadads (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this option makes the most sense.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

FAUK[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 delete by Fastly per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 21:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but from what I understand, it's typically a way to bypass censors that filter out the word "fuck". Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. FAUK is apparently his initials, but I find this redirect not particularly useful. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Maison Hauer-King[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find an Enligsh Language source that calls the Hauer-King House the Maison Hauer-King and with the house being designed by a Czech architect and its location being England, I do not see a natural affinity to the French language, therefore I am proposing this be deleted under WP:RLOTE. TartarTorte 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was made by accident and didn't notice the link was Maison Hauer-King instead of Hauer-King House. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Eopharyngia[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another circular link that does no-one any good. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Vincian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Vincian

Petroleum & Mining Engineering[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 💬 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a WP:XY issue where this could target either Petroleum engineering and Mining engineering. While Petroleum engineering mentions Recruitment to the industry has historically been from the disciplines of physics, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and mining engineering but that's the only mention of mining engineering on that page other than within the name of a society. TartarTorte 15:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Lisa Simpson giving head[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22#Lisa Simpson giving head

Operation Z (2022)[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. Withdrawn by nominator with no views expressed by others that were not keep (WP:WITHDRAWN) (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not used for the war, and in fact feels like pro-Russian mocking. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I guess it can be kept. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus I believe that you can withdraw this RfD if you want per WP:WITHDRAWN. TartarTorte 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, consider it withdrawn. Someone can close this discussion now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

2022 Russian specal operation in Ukraine[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 delete by ONUnicorn per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand it if it was "special" but this redirect isn't going to be helpful to anyone. It had a grand total of zero views in the last 30 days. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike the extreme inclusionism that takes place in RfD. It's a misspelling in the middle of a sentence with five words and four numbers. It's not plausible to get that particular misspelling often, and we don't have redirects for all other "plausible" misspellings that can take place in that sentence. We don't have 2022 ussian special operation in Ukraine or 2022 Russian special operation in Ukrine. The redirect has had zero views in 30 days. Nobody has needed it in over a month. In fact, this whole year it received nine views [4]. Let's just delete it, we don't need the clutter. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've A7 tagged the redirect, as creator. Based on the rcat I added (alternative name, not misspelling), I don't believe I realized there was a typo in the redirect at the time. I believe I probably found a red link and created the redirect believing it to be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Human trait[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 07:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, feels too broad for this one redirect to target, and the specific phrase only gets a hit in a citation in the article. The redirect was created in 2006 with the edit summary being temp redir, and there have been no edits since. I dove in a little – Personality seems like a good target, but I'm not well-versed enough in the area to be too sure about it. Trait is a DAB page and seems a bit iffy for this claim (someone who's searching human trait now needs to understand enough biology to pick the correct article). If anyone has more specific targets, those will probably be better. FYI, The talk page of Psychology has been notified about this discussion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Trump Crime Family[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 delete by 331dot as WP:G10. (non-admin closure) Randi🦋TalkContribs 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems very POINTY and reflects a political POV. Also as only Donald Trump has been indicted, and not other family members, it seems inaccurate. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this redirect in the Move log and was not aware of the existence of Biden Crime Family and its nomination here when I posted this. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Number transformation[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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target is far too broad, though I have no idea what this should be targeted to (it also may very well be another WP:R#D10 case). It may be an existing concept (I'm not good with google and lacking in math knowledge), but certainly not a well-known one, so a redirect is probably justified if there's content to support it... though the only existing article with the string Number transformation is Stirling number, which uses it in the compound "Stirling number transformation". FYI, the target page Mathematics has been notified. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – this name is too vague/generic to clearly describe a particular transformation, and as far as I can tell not a common term in and of itself. Redirecting it to 'mathematics' is not useful to anyone. –jacobolus (t) 08:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per Jacobulus. I am unable to guess which mathemaical concept is intended by this phrase. D.Lazard (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is possibly a term invented by the creator, which they used in their draft for the article to describe mathematics. Randi🦋TalkContribs 23:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to FunctionFunction (mathematics). I am guessing that the phrase "number transformation" refers to something that takes in a number as input and produces a number as output (the google search results are very certainly unhelpful and scattered in this regard, but I don't think they are a strong indicator against this belief). To be fair, this isn't an exact match, because a "function" can have arbitrary input and output types, whereas a "number transformation" is only restricted to numbers. Still, since most examples of functions that people care about do deal with numbers, I think this is likely the best match we've got. Duckmather (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC); amended 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Function is a disambiguation page, so I'm refining my !vote to the article about mathematical functions. Duckmather (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say no – they're harmless, and have edit histories (though Maths Formulas may fall under G11, so I have no objections there). I could also get behind an R#D10 on High-speed mathematics, as there's a book by that title that may be notable eventually, and having a redirect in draftspace as opposed to a red link could be confusing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I forgot about G13. No objections, though I wouldn't bundle it here given that the only things shared are the target. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. As for when this list meets the criteria for WP:G13, I will ask WT:AFC. --SilverMatsu (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Nantucket ferry[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 Nantucket#Transportation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other Nantucket ferries besides this one. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; they are mentioned at Steamship Authority#State regulatory body. They are also mentioned at Nantucket#Transportation if you think that would be a better target. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirecting to what, for reasons of balance, can only ever be a small section in Nantucket wouldn't help readers much. As noted the regulatory role of the Steamship Authority is already mentioned in Steamship Authority. If that section was expanded in relation to the regulated operators, the Steamship Authority article would provide a good "main article" for the section in the Nantucket one. Davidships (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support redirecting this to Nantucket#Transportation since there are other ferry operators that offer ferry service to Nantucket such as Hy-Line, Freedom, and Seastreak. If this were the only ferry service on Nantucket, I would support keeping the redirect. Other than that, I think the target that Beland mentioned is the better one. Interstellarity (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

List of deepwater ports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#List of deepwater ports

Mob theft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23#Mob theft

Biden Crime Family[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 delete by 331dot as WP:G10 (non-admin closure) Randi🦋TalkContribs 10:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, a redirect from a non-neutral term should be kept if it represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. The way to do that would be by identifying and explaining the non-neutral term at the target, with references to reliable sources. "Biden Crime Family" is not even mentioned in the article, so it has not been established. From what I can tell, this looks to be a Trumpism so perhaps if kept it can be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the original redirect request. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I found this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump Crime Family should also be nominated or bundled as such, given it's the same exact circumstances. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Yes, this term is used by a few politicians to smear the entire family of an opponent by using a Mafiaso term. There is no recognized “Biden Crime Family”. Just as there is no recognized “Trump Crime Family” and we do not do the bidding of partisan politicians by legitimizing a smear in an encyclopedia. WP:G3 I'm OK with mention in the list of Trump nicknames article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Slanderous expression used by Biden opponents. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This should have been a quick and easy Speedy Delete. G10 would seem to apply. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_14&oldid=1171772247"