Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2023.

Me llaman "Miss Marihuana" porque fumo all the time[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. Lourdes 06:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this lyric really notable or searched enough to get its own redirect? I'm not overly familiar with the song, but it does seem like it's just a random line. Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hello, @Suntooooth: thank you for the nomination. I created this redirect a year ago and now I consider it unnecessary; indeed, it is a random line from the song. I created a lof of unnecessary redirects last year that now I consider they should be deleted. I can list them for you if you want. Thank you. 7szz (talk) 01:19, 14 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).

Category:Test for category redirects[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. Invalid/meaningless deletion rationale, and apparently still being used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This classification does not belong to the sandbox in the general sense, so it should be deleted Q𝟤𝟪 10:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't understand what you're trying to say in your nomination. The redirect is a test page that serves a purpose, both as a test and an illustration of a hard-redirected category page. What purpose is served by deleting it? MClay1 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uninteligible nomination, but the page itself likewise serves no purpose and the test in 2013 that lead to its creation finished long ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know what the preceding comment is referring to -- the "test" is ongoing, to monitor whether any changes to the Mediawiki software change how category redirects are treated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've been wishfully expecting something to happen for more than a decade. I'm not convinced. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not "expecting". More like, being watchful. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what this test is for? Are you looking for a fix to a known bug, are you testing usages of categories on pages, or are you just waiting for the behaviour of this redirect to change? 192.76.8.86 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Ppppery has noted this was a test in 2013. At this point this category serves no purpose. If RnB wants to track changes, they should probably open a ticket at phab which will get more eyes on it. Gonnym (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If a well-clued-in editor like R'n'B has reason to think this should be kept, that suffices for me. BD2412 T 02:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add an explanation on the category page as to its purpose. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:14, 13 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).

X, Gospel according to/of Y[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 06:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful wording, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from sort name}}s (presumably). J947 † edits 07:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, generally. Matthew, Gospel According to, specifically, was created precisely because it is the title of the subject used by Encarta encyclopedia, and was created as part of an effort to insure that this encyclopedia did not miss any Encarta topics, and enabled readers searching under another common title formatting scheme to easily find their subjects. Encyclopedias have used sortname titles for centuries, so these should be expected to exist. BD2412 T 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and per DB2412 adn J947 and possibly tag per J947. I was curious so tried some searches. Currently if you type "luke gospel" in the search bar you see the "Luke, Gospel according to" redirect as an autocomplete search result would get you to Gospel of Luke with a simple click. To compare, since it appears John does Gospel of John seemingly does not have similar redirects typing "john gospel" does not give useful autocomplete results and one needs to do a further step of doing a full search. Skynxnex (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Nomination statement is not correct, these would be helpful if, for example, someone is searching based on the name given in a print encyclopaedia, for example (and it is quite a common way to name these books as generally that's how they get listed alphabetically). A7V2 (talk) 13:22, 17 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).

Repent or Perish[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 to Luke 13#Repent or Perish (verses 1–5); nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 07:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, unhelpful capitalisation: I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:14, 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).

Original Matthew[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 Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 06:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV since no one knows what the original Gospel of Matthew was, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 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).

Theology of Matthew[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep on this one. If there are more modern noted theologians named "Matthew", we could disambiguate the title, but I don't see any. BD2412 T 19:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep per BD2412. This seems like the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is very ambiguous, someone who types this in is almost certainly interested in the theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Even if there are other Matthews who have made important contributions to theology, they wouldn't be referred to as just "Matthew" and they're far less prominent. Hut 8.5 12:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 14 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).

Of Saint Matthew[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 11:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague. Many things a related to a saint called Matthew (relics, tetramorph, St. Matthew's (disambiguation), etc.). I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:10, 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).

Theology of John[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 11:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague, thus I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:06, 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).

According to John[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#According to John

Book of exaltation[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. Nomination withdrawn. If the mention is removed, come back here. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 09:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, thus I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it's discussed in the target article as the "Book of Glory", of which it is an alternate name.[1] 13:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The name "Book of exaltation" is still not mentioned anywhere at the target... Veverve (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine - I have added it in (with a citation). StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw as it is now present at the target. Veverve (talk) 09:18, 15 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).

Servant of sin[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 11:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, thus I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 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).

Anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John[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 Antisemitism and the New Testament#Gospel of John. Nomination withdrawn and suitable new target found. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:00, 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:Content of John[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 11:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure a template should redirect to the main space. Other such deleted templates (Template:Content of Luke, Template:Content of Matthew, and Template:Content of Mark) do not have redirects. Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think, at least now, the normal procedure would be to WP:SUBST the template on articles it was used and to delete the template. And not to redirect to an article that had transcluded it. Skynxnex (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. if the history is super important, we could move it to an article-space redirect. but, I don't think that's necessary in this case. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 13 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).

Mouse Trap (game)[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 Mousetrap (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mousetrap (disambiguation) as incompletely disambiguated. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An incomplete disambiguation is able to redirect to either the appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation – nominator stating that incomplete disambiguations must redirect to DAB pages is incorrect. In this case, the board game has significantly more pageviews and outbound traffic than the video game and is more likely to satisfy WP:PREDIRECT and WP:PTOPIC. Happily888 (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mousetrap (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} per WP:MISPLACED and WP:THRILLER (and nom). If the board game is really primary over the video game among the two games, then it should be moved to that title, not redirected from it, which may be decided via a requested move discussion. For now, as a redirect, the dab page is the only proper target. In this case, since the two games appear to be the only uses of Mouse Trap, the board game could be moved to that undisambiguated title per WP:SMALLDETAILS, with appropriate hatnotes to the video game, mousetrap, and the dab. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget as the board game has 3,572 views compared with only 411[[2]] for the video game and I think board games are more commonly called just "game(s)" than video games but its probably best to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 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).

Kracko[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 Krako. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merged content is no longer in use, and the character appears in half the games in the series. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this character was included in the List of Kirby characters until last month, when it was removed by the nom with an edit summary of "Nobody cares about Kracko." - Eureka Lott 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, I was halfway through removing cruft from the list and I ran out of edit summaries. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to Krako as {{R from misspelling}} , and add a Kirby destination article to the see also section; If the mention in the list article is restored, then, it should target the list instead. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:DABMENTION: if the target doesn't mention the character, it's not an appropriate target for a DAB due to not providing information helpful to the reader. There doesn't appear to be a good target currently on Wikipedia. Randi🦋TalkContribs 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a misspelling redirect, it doesn't need to be mentioned to target the disambiguation page. It would just be a misspelling of "Krako". There wouldn't need to be a Kirby link to support a misspelling redirect either, so if there is no appropriate Kirby article with a DABMENTION, that step can be skipped. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:02, 12 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_11&oldid=1160728337"