Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2023.

Untitled Marvel mutant-centered film[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. Legoktm (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect. I no longer see a section for the mutant-centered film by Marvel Studios. 45.72.238.106 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now: There is a still ongoing (albeit semi-inactive) discussion about the extent of this potential film at Draft talk:Untitled Marvel mutant-centered film, which I restarted to allow other editors to weigh in as the prospected film has not been confirmed yet, just that an X-Men film will be a long time away and be interchangeable with the term "mutants". The IP editor is aware of the draft's existence. At the draft, it is being discussed (and looking to support) for it being moved to use "project" in the title rather than "film", though we are just waiting on a consensus being reaffirmed for that months-old discussion, a decision which would impact this redirect. As the creator of the redirect, I have redirected it to a better section at Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe where info from the draft is now in use. It should've been adjusted when the info on the MCU films list was removed, but it wasn't. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the purposes of the mainspace name, given it's unclear what type of project it is (film or TV), having a redirect with "film" in it is helpful until more info is known. And since it has already been retargeted, we should be fine for the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The IP nominator neglected to tag the redirect page as being up for deletion. I have done that for them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This still seems too early in my opinion. We should wait until we have word that a Marvel mutant-centered film is in development before recreating the redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: way too vague. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shortly after being nominated, but before being tagged, the target was changed from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films to Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe. To avoid confusion, I have changed the target back to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films as this was the status quo before the nomination was made. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe per Trailblazer101 though I strongly dislike redirects/article titles with "upcoming" as they tend to attract broken links (internal and external) when they are eventually deleted. Certainly the List article is not suitable as there is no mention at all, so my second preference would be to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My rationale for my stance above is that the fate of this redirect would be determined by the draft talk's, which has agreed to rename it to Draft:Untitled Marvel Studios mutant project. This redirect should ultimately be moved to follow that draft's title, as it is misleading. Given I am the creator of the redirect and a page mover, I was thinking we could have easily just moved this redirect without leaving a redirect of the film one, thus avoiding this RfD entirely had the discussion been allowed to breathe, saving everyone some time, and hence my "keep for now" stance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion about the draft really isn't relevant to what to do with the redirect now. Once the article is moved to mainspace (assuming it is) then the target can of course be changed. There is no conceivable benefit to move a redirect without leaving a redirect when it has no history. A redirect with any other title can be created at any time with minimal effort. It seems as though you would rather delete it? A7V2 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah sure, I can just author request deletion and create a new redirect to the preferred target (which I or others can always delete once a title is known for this). I thought preserving history was needed for this, but I guess not really. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      G7 is no longer an option now that the redirect has been RfD'd. We'll have to see what the closer determines the consensus to be. And if it ends up being no consensus, we would have to honor the close and keep the redirect as it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Very well, though I feel this all could have been handled differently, and why I feel IPs really shouldn't make these without first discussing at the redirect's talk first as this was kind of sprung out-of-the-blue. I'll support what the consensus is, though these redirects are not of major importance and will all be deleted eventually. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The draft can stay to preserve history, but no redirect (or article) should exist in the mainspace until we have confirmation such a film exists. As Favre noted on the draft talk, the draft and this redirect are really independent matters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the above discussion, I now think best to delete (second preference still to retarget to Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe). A7V2 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: With regards to the discussion above, I'm changing my stance to delete as we really don't need this given it is too vague, not correct, and ultimately won't be needed in the future if this even comes into fruition. Would otherwise be in favor of retargeting to Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also changing my !vote to delete give the draft move and this now being a vague (and possibly inaccurate) article title for a still unknown project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 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).

Arab expansion[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 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague redirect. Is suggest deletion. As a second choice, retarget to the DAB Muslim conquests. As a third possibility, retarget to Rashidun Caliphate. Veverve (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Uselessly vague. There are numerous potential targets and no obvious one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Early Muslim conquests where it says with source that it is also called "Arab conquests". Veverve (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iskandar323. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Arab invasion redirects to Muslim conquests, so the outcome of this RfD can be applied there. Jay 💬 03:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the target of Arab conquests that is Early Muslim conquests. Jay 💬 09:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim conquests was meant to be the target of Arab conquests. I have now fixed this. Veverve (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean by was meant to be? R Prazeres had provided a detailed edit summary as to why he had changed the target to "early" Muslim conquests. Jay 💬 10:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arab conquests in a general sense would clearly refer to Early Muslim conquests, per my edit summary years ago, as Jay mentioned. A Google Books search, for example, immediately turns up numerous books on that topic specifically. I'm reverting that retarget for now, for those reasons. PS: The "Muslim conquests" DAB itself also looks like it should be simplified, I've left a talk page comment there. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck off my earlier vote per the examples given by R Prazeres. Other plausible targets are Arab world#History, History of the Arabs#Medieval period (when the major expansion happened), Arabization#History of Arabization. Or disambiguate if possible, or delete if there is no agreement on a target or dab page. Jay 💬 08:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer to Delete per Iskandar323 or, if not, then retarget to Early Muslim conquests per Jay's suggestion. The word "expansion" is vague, as aside from the early Arab-Muslim conquests, there are also later Arab Bedouin migrations and social shifts to Arabic language and culture which this could roughly refer to. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 5 March 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).

Raven Stout[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. Legoktm (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a copyvio about a specific brand name of beer that was converted to a redirect. There is no mention of this specific beer on wikipedia (and there likely shouldn't be), so this would best be deleted. TartarTorte 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 18:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Best to pour this redirect down the drain. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:44, 27 February 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).

Bheer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Bheer

Great Privy Seal[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the "Great Privy Seal" of England - there is a Privy Seal and a Great Seal. This redirect appears to have been made following an error on Walter Walsh (courtier), which I have since corrected. asilvering (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: What about Owain Glyndŵr's Great privy Seal mentioned at Welsh Seal? Jay 💬

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@Jay: I think that's probably the same kind of problem. I certainly wouldn't call the Girl Guides a reliable source for the history of Wales in any case, but additionally I did a google books text search on that and "great privy seal" has no results (even if you search without quotation marks). It might even have been an incorrect citation in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once the mention at Welsh Seal has been removed. Jay 💬 05:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's still a mention at Welsh Seal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This will open up the search engine, which sounds like it would be more useful for anyone who has stumbled upon this erroneous term. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:32, 6 March 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).

Dick Wiend[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Dick Wiend

Dick Wieand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Dick Wieand

Ætheric[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 Aether. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Aether, and create Etheric and Aetheric as a redirect to Aether. Note that Ætheric is not an actual spelling of Æthelric. 176.88.81.49 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Aether. This might possibly be a typo for Æthelric, but Ætheric is an actual word and that should take precedence. Hut 8.5 18:28, 23 February 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).

Bendis and Maleev[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 participation, despite it being relisted twice. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear redirect, as while the duo have notably worked on Daredevil, they have certainly done other projects. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:55, 22 February 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).

Makudo[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 countries with McDonald's restaurants#Japan. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect is useful. Yes it is a shortened version of makudonarudo (マクドナルド) but as an English-language project we generally do not keep foreign language redirects unless if the company itself is foreign. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without an article on McDonald's in Japan, there is no suitable redirect target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drapetomanic: which target are you referring to? CycloneYoris talk! 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries with McDonald's restaurants Drapetomanic (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of countries with McDonald's restaurants#Japan which has the mention. Jay 💬 09:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Awesome Aasim is correct on policy here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policy - Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY, or are you referring to the essay Wikipedia:RLOTE? How are any of them relevant when the proposed target is not the subject article, but a list page mentioning the term? Jay 💬 11:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RDELETE#8: In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. This has always been construed to mean that merely having something (e.g., death) does not constitute a relationship to that language or culture, hence we do not have redirects to that page from the word for death in other languages (e.g., meurta/la muerta) and have consistently deleted redirects like that. The same logic applies to McDonald's, and changing the target to a list article does not change this. (Moreover, this would be an unhelpful WP:SURPRISE, as someone searching "Makudo" is presumably looking for information about the restaurant and not merely a list of countries that have them.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you say changing the target to a list article does not change this? Why do you say that per WP:R#D8 the proposed target list article does not or should not contain entries related to a language/culture other than English? The reason I find the proposed target helpful is because I did not know before what Makudo was, and now I get the context from the target. If there's more information at the target, then sure, that's more helpful. You quoted the second sentence of R#D8 but the first sentence says If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. (emphasis mine). Jay 💬 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not be creating foreign-language redirects in general unless if the topic is the source of that term. That is why 日本国 is a redirect, but 米国 is not. See Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English and Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting. Same logic applies here. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The links you provided are the pages we have been discussing. I understand that the topic is the source of that term is your interpretation of how RLOTE should work. You may want to go through the Examples section there for the appropriate, inappropriate and special case scenarios. Also, the discussion here is to retarget to a list page entry about Japan, not the McDonald's article. Jay 💬 07:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of countries with McDonald's restaurants#Japan - it's an unambiguous search term to something that is WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to be mentioned in a list. It also even seems to have some amount of "officiality", and I don't think there's any question that McDonald's Japan (which also redirects to that list) is in fact related to Japanese. I don't see any reason to delete. eviolite (talk) 14:15, 17 March 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).

Epidemiology of IKBKAP in the United States[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. The content at the target is related to the search term, but after two relists there is no clear consensus on whether a) to describe it in the article text as a US epidemiology (the text mentions Ashkenazi Jews and cites a US health journal, but it is not clear that emphasizing this as the US epidemiology is DUE or even accurate) or b) whether this is accurately "IKBKAP epidemiology" as opposed to the epidemiology of a related condition. It is possible that both of those questions have definitive answers that could be discovered by digging into the sources or that would be familiar to a subject-matter expert, but that's outside of my remit as a closer and the answer does not seem forthcoming in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how the "epidemiology of IKBKAP in the US" is related to "IKBKAP#Familial_Dysautonomia", which is not even IKBKAP itself but in a section "Related conditions", and more importantly has no info about the US specifically. Fram (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Competence is required. The section explains that one single mutation of IKBKAP is >99.5% of cases.
However the section certainly does appear to have a global perspective without mentioning any one country. However examining the sources shows that they use samples mostly or entirely from United States Ashkenazim.[1] The section should be changed to say it is relevant only to specific populations. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no mention/discussion of its epidemiology in the United States specifically. A7V2 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply above. The text which is presently there is in the United States – and less so other countries. I would change the text but as I said CIR and this is not my area. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:54, 22 February 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).

Primary State Highway 23 (Washington)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 2#Primary State Highway 23 (Washington)

Kristen Cui[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Kristen Cui

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_22&oldid=1145201126"