Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2023.

Rounded rectangle[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 Superellipse without prejudice against an article being written. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A "squircle" is a specific (and relatively obscure) shape, and generally isn't what people mean when referring to a "rounded rectangle". Page also doesn't include any information about non-square shapes.

The only thing which links to Rounded Rectangle is Wikipedia:Coverage_of_Mathworld_topics/R.

12Me21 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore previous target to Superellipse, which was the original target of this redirect (and is a more precise target than the current one). The current target was placed by an IP in 2007, without any proper explanation, and it should've been reverted back then. CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:REDLINK. It could be fitting for an article, see [1]. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to superellipse per CycloneYoris -- this is a rounded rectangle, not a rounded square, which is the topic of the current target Squircle -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will note that the rounded rectangle is a toolbox primitive for the original Macintosh operating system, when it originally launched, to create the stereotypical Apple onscreen buttons that weren't the beveled rectangles of other operating systems GUIs; and has since now appeared in drawing/graphics programs everywhere. So marking this {{R with possibilities}} is possible. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the target talk page.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per CycloneYoris. Current target is too specific; it would be like redirecting "rectangle" to "square" if the former didn't already have an article. Superellipse is a broader topic and also covers shapes that aren't rounded rectangles, but it has relevant information. Tag as {{r from related topic}} (or {{r from subtopic}}) and {{r with possibilities}}. – Scyrme (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create stub where it can be mentioned of its use in computer drawings (Photoshop, Macintosh). It can include rounded corners / bevelling designs, stadium (geometry), squircles, ellipses, squared circle and so on. The shape is used everywhere as from a search for the term. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a volunteer author, this isn't a viable suggestion. Do you have a second preference? – Scyrme (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone can't write a simple paragraph, perhaps paraphrasing or quoting from Wolfram MathWorld: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RoundedRectangle.html#:~:text=A%20rounded%20rectangle%20is%20the,The%20rounded%20rectangle%20has%20perimeter I'd redirect to Squared circle disambiguation then. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think redirecting to squared circle would work. Disambiguation pages are only meant to cover minor variations like capitalisation or singular/plural. "Rounded rectangle" is a completely different title; they aren't even really synonyms.
    Why not retarget to the original target, superellipse? A rounded rectangle is a type of superellipse and the page mentions such rectangular patterns. – Scyrme (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 1 June 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).

2024 State of Origin series[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of the 2024 series at the target as there is really nothing to be said about it. It also provides the false impression that an article exists, for example in the navigation template on 2023 State of Origin series. This should therefore be deleted. This would of course in no way preclude creating an article when that becomes viable. A7V2 (talk) 06:54, 1 June 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:Nt[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 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason this template exists is because it is an abbreviation of "not translated", which itself was created well after the big merge of all the various ILL variants so I'm not really sure why it is necessary, but this two-letter shortening makes no sense out of context and is barely used (12 uses in article space). Primefac (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and salt, too many other meanings for "nt". Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 1 June 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).

Cheez-It Bowl (2020–present)[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 14:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "–present" is now outdated and incorrect. The utility of this redirect is now served by Cheez-It Bowl (2020–2022). No pages use this redirect, it should never be used, and it is not something a user would search for -- thus, requesting deletion. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:44, 1 June 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).

Disannexation[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 Deannexation now that the two-entry dab page has been met with approval. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to vote keep, although I think I could be persuaded otherwise. This struck me as a topic for which a Wikipedia article could exist, discussing such things as how it happens, why it is done, notable examples, etc. Under those circumstances, deleting to encourage the creation of an article often makes sense, but in this case, Google Scholar and Google Books suggest that the phenomenon is not notable, insofar as little has been written about it apart from cases of it happening. Given that this is the kind of thing which it seems like we would have an article on but actually can't, I think a soft redirect makes sense. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nothing links to the page. --evrik (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to annexation and tag as {{R from antonym}}. Also worth noting that (at least in the U.S.) "deannexation" is the more common term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to the deannexation DAB created by Visviva. I also concur that a BCA would be a good solution in the long run. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 02:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 23:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, to enable uninhibited Search, which may be more helpful than the content at Annexation (which doesn't mention the word). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm swayed by the SSRT argument. If we're back here in a few months because a new editor tried to create it, soft-redirecting may be more warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, to make the gap in our coverage clear and hopefully to encourage article creation. The problem with both the existing soft redirect and the proposed {{r from antonym}} is that the encyclopedic aspect of this is the aspect of disannexation/deannexation that is not simply the mirror image of annexation: the various substantive requirements and procedural roadblocks that exist in different jurisdictions (which make the rare examples of large-scale disannexation noteworthy) and the various reasons for them. (Google Scholar shows an abundance of discussion of this from a legal and policy standpoint, albeit mostly requiring HeinOnline access that I don't currently have. Those papers seem to be entirely limited to US municipal disannexation law but I don't know if that's a limitation in Google Scholar or if this is in fact a unique oddity of US local government law.) From the lack of incoming links I guess I've never actually linked to this, but I would have done so without hesitation because I would have assumed, without looking, that we had an article on it. -- Visviva (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am working up a little something, currently in userspace with intended destination of Municipal deannexation in the United States. Even without full access to the relevant research databases, there seem to be ample sources for a basic survey article. (There may be a reasonable case to make for merging this with municipal annexation in the United States; but I think they are sufficiently analytically distinct that they will serve editors and readers better as separate articles at this broad-strokes level; at the state level probably all municipal-boundary-related topics are best lumped under "Local government in X".)
    Got a bit of work to do to get everything tidied up, but once that page is ready and moved live, IMO it would make sense for disannexation and deannexation to be either redirected there or turned into disambiguation pages of some kind (preferably the latter, I think, to avoid unduly astonishing readers/linkers who might not be looking for this particular topic). -- Visviva (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Municipal deannexation in the United States is now live, and I have created a dab page at Deannexation. I have no strong opinion about exactly what should be dabbed or redirected to what, but it seems to me that retargeting the disannexation redirect to deannexation (and tweaking that page accordingly) would be a reasonable outcome here. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist, to consider Visviva's excellent work. I wonder if a brief BCA might work better than a dab page in this instance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:52, 1 June 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).

Partition of Yugoslavia[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. A rough consensus has developed. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 05:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that comes to mind when speaking of "partition of Yugoslavia" is the partition by Axis occupiers after the invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. Partitioning during the breakup of Yugoslavia was limited to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Should this be re-redirected? –Vipz (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's safe to just turn it into a disambiguation page to cover both concepts, because it is plausible that an average English reader searches for partition of Yugoslavia and wants to read up about the ultimate one. --Joy (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since we haven't been making much progress, I've drafted the trivial disambiguation page there now. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay @Rosguill would you mind having another look at partition of Yugoslavia now, because the apparent lack of consensus has been dissuading RfD closing so far :) --Joy (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had seen the dab draft, but my vote was a support of the nomination. I would prefer the nom Vipz to comment on the opinions so far. Jay 💬 08:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I didn't mention Vipz because I recall him thanking me for my edit back then, so it seems like he was already in agreement. (I guess that 'public thanks' isn't really visible to others. Probably exacerbated by the fact RfD content gets moved to different pages with relisting.) --Joy (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the lack of comment. Yes, a disambiguation page seems suitable. –Vipz (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay any objections to proceed with that then? A month or so later we can analyze WikiNav traffic patterns to see if swapping anything around further makes more sense for most readers. --Joy (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The dab looks ok to me--as a TWODAB situation with an unclear primary target, the difference between the three suggestions in this discussion (keep/retarget/dab) will be minimal to readers, as they will be quickly taken to either the correct page or a page with a clear hatnote or dab entry to what they're looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 13:38, 11 June 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:HPD[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 02:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved {{HPD}} to {{CPID}}, updated the code therein, and updated the template tags correspondingly on all 30-some-odd pages that used it. The remaining few links to HPD are of minimal importance. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jay 💬 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the connection between HPD and CPID? -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 1 June 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).

Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)

Chümoukedima–Dimapur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Chümoukedima–Dimapur

Safe house raids[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 21:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this search term unambiguously refer to those of Al-Qaeda? J947 † edits 03:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I don't think there's any other applicable article. I don't know what the term is, but I think it should be split into its own article. Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 15:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to do with raiding drug kingpin safehouses in Mexico or Colombia; or fictional raids like in the movie Safe House (2012 film) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the target isn't a good fit for it, since raids aren't mentioned at all, and there are lots of other usages of the term. Hut 8.5 17:38, 9 June 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).

Infinity of God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#Infinity of God

Wikipedia:NQ[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. Basically a G7 with no one advocating for keeping the redirect. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is a better choice to go from orientation to Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum. Q𝟤𝟪 21:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - I don't frequent promotion discussions much. Do voters there use this redirect often? That is to say, if someone were to go check on historical voting discussions for a user, would this redirect be found often enough to cause confusion to modern readers if we changed the destination? Fieari (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused. The nominator, @Q28:, made this redirect on 22 May 2023. And listed it for discussion on 24 May 2023. Why not just retarget yourself at that time? Given its new-ness and the fact it is a bit ambiguous, I'd lean toward delete and no real opinion about its target if kept (other than once kept, to avoid changing it since these shorts of short cuts are used in edit summaries almost as much as in text). Skynxnex (talk) 14:56, 2 June 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).

Diabeetus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Diabeetus

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_1&oldid=1162098022"