Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2023.

Wearables, Home and Accessories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24#Wearables, Home and Accessories

'feld[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24#'feld

Psuedomonas insueta[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 Psuedomonas panasis and move Psuedomonas insueta to the correct spelling. Jay 💬 07:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion for these redirects to stubs on niche microbial species. Misspelling the pseudo- prefix is an implausible typo, exemplified by extremely low pageviews for both redirects. The former is redirecting to a species that has not been classified in the Pseudomonas genus since 1977, further reducing the likelihood of a reader seeking its page through this misspelling. The latter is redirecting to a species with an additional s-->c difference in spelling, leaving it unlikely that a reader would make both spelling errors at once. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- To clarify- IF this were spelled correctly then old synonym would be no reason to delete. However I agree this is an unnecessary incorrect spelling. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create, or move(?) to the properly spelled "Pseudomonas x" redirects + add {{R from former name}} to P. insueta. While misspelling pseudo- is a time honored tradition, this is a case where the search bar can take care of the typo. Psuedomonas panasis got 24 clicks last year, and Psuedomonas insueta got fewer at 4. These niche links are still being found without the properly spelled terms existing and I think it is fair to attribute that to the search bar. ― Synpath 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to the creation of correctly-spelled redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Psuedomonas panasis, move without redirect Psuedomonas insueta to Pseudomonas insueta. I figure I should bring up WP:MOVEREDIRECT as a potential counterpoint I've gotten in the past when suggesting moves without redirects; my interpretation is that it does not cover these cases, given the edit history is still applicable (I would want to know who created the insueta redirect originally, because nobody else has created the correctly-spelled title in the 16 years the typo'd version has existed!), and there is no redirect left behind that has to be dealt with. Panasis has two typos and it's unclear which title it should be moved to, so deletion is better there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 July 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).

Draft:Symphonic Cinema[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. WP:IAR early close due to the WP:POINTiness of this nomination. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Second nomination per WP:IAR. The only reason for its existence is my own user error. This page does not help Wikipedia. Merko (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep – This was discussed just over a month ago and there's no reason to delete (it doesn't meet any of WP:R#DELETE, and redirects are cheap). I've used old draft links before, who says the person who created the draft doesn't have the capitalized version bookmarked? It doesn't fall under G7 because you didn't create the redirect; WP:R#K4 also applies here. (I would also point out that renominating an article clearly kept like this without new arguments is probably a bad idea and trending towards disruptive territory, though I can't find a page that outright says that.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 July 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).

Dogge[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 Dog. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title is not mentioned in the target page at all, and I am not seeing any indication that the current target is the primary meaning of the redirect at all. BD2412 T 19:28, 16 July 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).

Chinatown, Richmond[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 14:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target section does not exist. There is a one word mention of Richmond district of San Francisco at the target, in which case Chinatown, San Francisco would be a better target. There is no mention of the Chinatown at Richmond District, San Francisco. However, more than a district, Richmond would be better seen as the cities Richmond, Virginia or Richmond, California, or any of the places in Richmond. Delete as ambiguous. Jay 💬 18:24, 16 July 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).

Chinatowns in Florida[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 14:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sections they redirect to do not exist. There is no mention of the specific Chinatowns at the target. There is no information on Chinatowns at the specific state articles. Delete. Jay 💬 18:00, 16 July 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).

Cleo Smith (murder victim)[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 per G5. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Smith wasn't murdered, or even harmed, according to the article. Misleading and an unlikely search term. (Note: Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet) (NPP action) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:28, 16 July 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).

Easy Is the Way(The Black Donnellys)[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 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with missing space (WP:RDAB). Correct redirect exists at Easy Is the Way (The Black Donnellys). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: harmless, readers can't be expected to know proper disambiguation conventions. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure they know about space between words... Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Steel1943. CycloneYoris talk! 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Readers looking for "Easy Is the Way" will see two entries in the results drop down, one good, one malformed. I don't know if our search engine factors in redirects tagged as errors and omits them, in which case we could have tagged this and solved the problem. Jay 💬 16:53, 24 July 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).

You're the Voice (Alan Parsons song)[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. The confusion with the songs will be resolved by the nom by doing the necessary hatnoting in a day's time. Jay 💬 09:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong target, and the song is actually just The Voice. Either delete or retarget to I Robot (album) (although wrong name). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now see that, as well as their own song, they performed and recorded the John Farnham song, as described in the section World Liberty Concert in the You're the Voice article. So I guess it should be retargeted to this section, possibly with a redirect or distinguish hatnote mentioning the other song on their I Robot album. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here, same holds true for the other remark I think.
It is not 'The Voice' but the Alan Parsons live recorded version of the John Farnham song. Live concert recordings can still be found online, here on YouTube. Since the link creation the single was re-released digitally (here on Spotify) and this year it was released in the Netherlands as a vinyl record, here on a generic Dutch marketplace. The album contains the only publication of the instrumental song White Dawn, which make it a notable recording in the discography of Alan Parsons.
So it is a different song and please don't mix them up. If you see opportunity to clarify the Wikipedia pages around this subject, please do so. Nico.rikken (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, I realised that there are two different songs, as I was trying to say above... But because I had already posted here, did not want to mess with the history of the redirect by fixing it afterwards, because it needs to follow the process. Their song "The Voice" is on the DAB page for The Voice, which makes it confusing for users. That needs to be explained there too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laterthanyouthink: I'll close this as keep. Can you make the necessary refining or hatnoting? Jay 💬 06:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Jay. I'll get onto it tomorrow sometime. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I merged these two RfD's to avoid parallel discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 23 July 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).

Wikipedia:CLUE[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 WP:SNOW retarget. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the matter at present, apart from that these two redirects target different essays and they shouldn't. Wikipedia:Cluocracy receives significantly more pageviews. J947 † edits 11:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "cluocracy" essay seems to define clue as similar to consensus: the idea that you make arguments on talk pages that follow PAGs, and the best arguments win. The "having a clue" essay seems to define clue as knowing what you don't know and behaving accordingly. Based on how I've seen the word "clue" used by editors over the last few years when I've been active, I feel the definition of clue is closer to the "having a clue" essay than the "cluocracy" essay. My two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 16 July 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).

Unused married name redirects with presumed 0 hits[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Unused married name redirects with presumed 0 hits

Berryman logical image technique[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 retarget (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward-Woodrow (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This specific redirect goes to the author's article, while another redirect with the correct capitalization (Berryman Logical Image Technique) goes to the actual short story. This redirect should probably go to the short story article. Deauthorized. (talk) 05:22, 16 July 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_July_16&oldid=1167518225"