Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2023.

Great Britain Olympic football team[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 Great Britain football team. Participants agree that there's no need for creating a new DAB page if one already exists. Tagged the redirect accordingly as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a dismabiguation page as per WP:TWODABS. Great Britain men's Olympic football team has only competed a few times and not since 2012 (and no plans to compete again), whereas the women have competed at every Olympics since 2012. Thus, it's equally likely people will be looking for the men's team (for historic articles) or for the women's team (for recent articles). There are 64 mainspace links to this redirect which would need to be fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget per Skarmory. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom. GiantSnowman 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally closed this as disambiguate given the clear consensus that was building, but within a few minutes while building the DAB page I found a potential target that the proposed DAB would pretty much duplicate – Great Britain football team. In my opinion, this should redirect to Great Britain football team. (As an aside, if there's a better way to handle this situation, let me know; I should probably be drafting the DAB pages before closing to prevent this specific incident from happening again, but it looked to me like I was left with the options of creating a DAB page that would probably get merged, reverting my close and !voting risking SUPERVOTE concerns, or boldly redirecting after closing a discussion about five minutes prior with a different consensus. I chose the middle option.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 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).

HMS Cruizer (1705)[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 23:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason 10 ("The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject"). This redirect was created as a placeholder on the request of Rgdem999 who appears to be inactive. No other potential Royal Navy ships are redirected rather than being redlinked. Tevildo (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this page was created by request as a starting point for an article, because all HMS Cruizer titles are on the global title blacklist. See the redlinks at HMS Cruizer for other examples. - Eureka Lott 02:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:REDYES and since this is not discussed at the target, but it seems a very strange thing to have a blacklist entry for. I was unable to find anything in the archives of [[1]], I wonder if anyone knows the background? Could this blacklist entry now be lifted or modified? A7V2 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree, based on the title blacklist entry. meta:talk:title blacklist is the place to request updates to the list, but, considering the abusive user was active as recently as 2020, it's probably a bit too soon to start removing the protection. Tevildo (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's unfortunate. It's not something I really care enough about to want to invest the time to have it lifted, especially if as you say this is related to a recent issue. If someone wanted to turn this into an article, I could support a retarget to HMS Cruizer as a temporary measure but given this could be created by request I think a redlink is still preferable. A7V2 (talk) 00:27, 29 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).

7 21 23 and 21 7 23[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 23:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie also came out on this date, making this a bit ambiguous if it were to only refer to movies. I'm unsure if this should keep its current redirect as Oppenheimer's ad does seem to use 7.21.23 much more than Barbie's did, but also this doesn't necessarily unambiguous refer to movies either. I'm split between keep, retarget to Barbenheimer, retarget to 2023#July (although July 21 is not mentioned specifically) or delete. TartarTorte 17:00, 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).

Combat jujitsu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Combat jujitsu

Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit

Radeon R800[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. Keeping as a plausible misnomer, and promoting the CPU to primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent failed crystal balling (per creating edit summary) - not mentioned at target. If this is deleted then the entry at R800 can be removed and R800 (CPU) promoted to the undisambiguated title * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 10:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above and go ahead with the promote despite the keep. Jay 💬 17:04, 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).

Heterophylly[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 💬 05:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After closing the move at Shoot, I went to update the redirects, and stumbled across a couple that didn't make sense to me. I don't think Shoot (botany) is the best target for any of these; not sure about Heteroblasty (botany) either, and they may fall under WP:R#D10 as broad topics that need their own articles (especially Anisophylly, which is not mentioned at either target). At the very least, Heterophylly and Heterophyllous should be synced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's rather a mess. I think the first thing to do would be to create coverage for Anisophylly, which is entirely different from Heterophylly. I can't find any history that it was ever covered, am I missing something? Anisophylly, "not quite the same leaves", is when there are leaves of two different sizes on the same shoot, little leaves alternating with the big ones, as shown here [[2]] and we have it in at least one Commons photo here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anisophylly now has a minimal coverage on its own page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck Anisophylly from the nom as such. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:16, 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).

Wikipedia:Code of conduct[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 Wikipedia:List of policies#Conduct. Jay 💬 05:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all these should redirect to the same page. I think it's better for all of them to redirect to Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct. Just as a note, I made the last 2 (Wikipedia:CoC and Wikipedia:Coc) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 09:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The universal code of conduct applies as a minimum standard for all of the Wikimedia projects, while the English Wikipedia has its own policies on top of it. In addition, Wikipedia:Etiquette only offers one part of the English Wikipedia's code of conduct. Wikipedia:List of policies § Conduct, consistent with WP:CONDUCT, may be a better choice. Randi🦋TalkContribs 14:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:16, 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).

Template:Notable[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 with support. No further discussion to be had. Username6892 / Edward-Woodrow, or any user may perform the retarget after the transclusions are done. Jay 💬 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable", as the name of a template, implies that it should be added to articles on topics editors have concluded are notable in the way {{Sources exist}} is used rather than for a topic of questionable notability. I think this should, therefore, be retargeted to Template:Sources exist after the 128 existing mainspace transclusions are converted to {{Notability}}. ~UN6892 tc 14:16, 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).

England's King Charles I[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. Consensus has cleared post-relist, and it has settled on this specific case being a valid form of natural disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Edward-Woodrow and Tavix. 〜 Askarion ✉ 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless natural disambiguation. A7V2 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix: help outweighs harm. J947 † edits 01:12, 28 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).

'feld[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 💬 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an oddly longstanding undiscussed redirect. I can't find any references of this sort of abbreviation for the show, and it has 0 hits from what I can find anyway. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super weak retarget to Feld which is a surname list (as well as mentioning a vaguely related company offhand); this is hardly an exact match but it's the closest one we have on Wikipedia. Otherwise I guess there's nowhere else for this redirect to go so I'm guessing deletion? Duckmather (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or delete; the fact of its creation demonstrates that this is potentially a term that is used even though it is basically impossible to search for this phrase. A retarget is unhelpful. J947 † edits 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's been used 372 times since 2015, but did they find the 'feld they were looking for? Absent any evidence of use, it's not an appropriate redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 1 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).

Wearables, Home and Accessories[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 Apple Inc.#Other products. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible and ambiguous search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's the official name used by Apple for this product category. Such a highly specific search term is very unlikely to be ambigous, and even if users would search for this exact term and be disappointed because they searched for something else, they would come to realize that Apple's product category is the only notable use of this highly specific term.--Maxeto0910 (talk) Special:Contributions/Maxeto0910 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Apple Inc.#Other products where the phrase is mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_24&oldid=1171214611"