Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2023.

Nagu town[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 Nagu. Consensus has become quite clear after the relist. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagu isn't in Tibet, nor is the town mentioned in the sole incoming link from 2023 Yunnan protest. Certes (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 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).

Anus burger[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 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a silly, bizarre redirect that doesn't feel that useful for someone looking for Angus burgers. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:05, 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).

Plastic card[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 restore article. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously existed as an article, now a redirect to a section of debit card. But this is a broader term than debit cards, and the content there about plastic cards is out of place. Payment card is a broader l term than debit card, and ISO/IEC 7810 is a broader term than payment card. Restore article? Redirect to the card disambiguation page? Playing cards may be made out of plastic, and Google thinks I'm interested in plastic playing cards when I search for "plastic card". Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merge that resulted in the redirect is questionable. Why Debit card not Credit card? I'm not suggesting it should've been merged to Credit card, it's just an example. Was the merge discussed anywhere? I didn't notice any relevant discussion on at Talk:Debit card (although other merges were discussed) and Talk:Plastic card doesn't exist. Nuts240 gave the reason as: merged former CopyVio redo into Debit card. If it really was a CopyVio (which is plausible, given past revisions were deleted for that reason), then shouldn't it have been deleted not merged? Keeping the article (or merging it elsewhere, like Payment card) might be viable if it wasn't actually a CopyVio, since it has a number of references (although I didn't verify them or check whether they're reliable).
The current target is the best for the redirect in terms of taking readers to where the topic is explicitly discusssed, but given that situation was created by an apparently undiscussed merge to a questionable destination I don't think a simple "keep" is the solution.
I'd say undo the merge, restore, and send to AfD. This seems to go beyond the scope of what's usual for redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, plastic would be payment card, but also used for ID cards, especially RFD keys, like for hotel rooms -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely seems like this could be a notable subject and that the merged target doesn't make much sense. Best to undo the merge and restore the article I think, per Scyrme. Note that this is still linked to at Card (the disambiguation page). If it turns out this was the result of some discussion then keep I suppose. Certainly don't delete. A7V2 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuts240 gave the merge reason at the target as Plastic card is just one big CopyVio which was REVERTED, then reword by the CopyVio person... IDEA: fold into another article!! WHICH ONE? THIS ONE!!!!! The "CopyVio person" Kku had rewritten the source article after the copyvio versions were deleted. The admin Nthep approved of this and formally removed the copyvio tags, so I don't see why the article contents had to be "hidden" with a merge and redirect, or have to be taken to AfD now. Restore. It is unfortunate that the "Plastic card" section has been there at an article of Debit card for almost an year, with no one realizing. Jay 💬 09:43, 23 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).

Yang Chengzhong[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 23:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plausible typo, but the link from List of members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to Yang Chengzhong (elected in 1980) is for another academic zh:杨澄中. This redirect to Yang Chengzong (zh:杨承宗) could be confusing, so I suggest we delete it. HTinC23 (talk) 19:01, 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).

Ogre Triplets (Shrek)[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 23:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect. The names of the Ogre Triplets are no longer mentioned in the target. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:49, 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).

Wayne Carter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Wayne Carter

Customs redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Customs redirects

Iron(III) carbonate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Iron(III) carbonate

Al Frankenstein[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 all but Tim Apple, which will be renominated.
  • Regarding Tim Apple, the suggestion of retargeting to Tim Cook is reasonable. Normally two for retarget, with the rest for bulk deletion but no specific objections to retargeting, would be enough to say rough consensus to retarget; however, here we have two past RfDs ruling against Tim Cook as a target, which complicates things. Thus, to avoid a TRAINWRECK, I will be splitting this off to a standalone nomination.
  • Regarding Little Katy, Fake ABC News, Your favorite president, Mad Alex, Very Fake News, and Concast, the proposed new targets are unrelated to the current target, so I find rough consensus to delete, but without prejudice against recreating with the proposed targets (courtesy pings @Jay, Red-tailed hawk, and Jc37).
  • For the rest, there is clear consensus for deletion.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer mentioned at target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added 37 more nicknames that are also no longer mentioned, mostly due to a major cleanup this month. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – added all the previous RfDs. J947 † edits 07:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the closer, here's a machine-readable list of the redirects for your convenience. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all They all arguably violate WP:ATTACK and have no real use in an explanatory sense. There are definitely insulting nicknames that can enter the popular lexicon, i.e. "Tricky Dick", but none of these appear to rise to that level (and it will be tough given the sheer volume of names thrown out at people). They are simple one-off attacks that shouldn't be mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 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, signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 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).

Wikipedia:JZG[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 00:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to say is that if this is allowed, then WP:Q28 can be from ideal to my user page Q𝟤𝟪 10:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • JzG used to be one of the most active administrators on the project. Since administrators' talk pages are often watched and edited by lots of people, it has not been unheard of historically for folk to create WP-space redirects to them (see, for example, WP:Iritalk, which links to Iridescent's talk page, and I had it in my head that 'WP:ANI2' used to redirect somewhere, but looking at it now I see that it never existed, so maybe I'm thinking of something else). It would certainly not be appropriate for everyone and their dog to go around creating WP-space redirects to their own user talk pages, but I can see the purpose of doing it for a few heavily trafficked pages. Having said that, JzG has, for now at least, put down the mop, and his talk page doesn't get as much traffic as it used to, so there's probably no on-going need for this redirect to exist. So, I !vote meh. Girth Summit (blether) 11:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Convert to soft redirect per WP:ANK, which was handled at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_26#Wikipedia:ANK?
    Seems to make sense to preserve. Star Mississippi 02:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too new to know the full story of ANK, but I believe that was a humor page that was kept for sentimental value. What sentimental value does this have, now that a)JzG isn't as active anymore, and b)this isn't any different from the User talkpage except for the namespace? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't originally a humor page. It was exactly this situation of a cross namespace redirect which was converted to historical/humor. I don't recall if Keeper had retired at that point or not but his activity had dropped.
    FWIW, nom has been blocked from project space for disruption. Doesn't mean this discussion shouldn't continue - just flagging. Star Mississippi 12:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: You're probably thinking of WP:ANI 2.0 → User talk:Drmies​, which was my very first brush with RfD. But hey, I got an RfA nom out of it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tamzin, ah, the good old days. My talk page still kind of functions that way, it seems. On the bright side, I finished the back deck, and you're welcome to come by at cocktail hour. Bring your swimsuit! Drmies (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eponymous shortcuts in projectspace to usertalkspace seem distasteful to me, as they imply greater importance to certain users (even if deserved), and should be limited to WP:JIMBOTALK at most. There are a few links to this redirect, though, so make sure to change them to prevent redlinks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we don't generally allow redirects from project space to a user talk page, and I don't see any reason to make an exception here. Hut 8.5 12:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John M Wolfson and Hut 8.5. Doesn't seem to have gotten much use in any event. -- Visviva (talk) 17:30, 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).

Hottest life[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 Hyperthermophile. Jay 💬 07:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to Sexiest Man Alive. Retarget to Carolina Reaper. Delete as a vague term, plus the redirect makes a claim that the article does not substantiate. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Tavix; overly vague. J947 † edits 01:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the target is the living organism that can live at the highest temperature. The above other suggestions might be appropriate for hottest man or hottest woman. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your source for that claim? Also, the Carolina Reaper is a pepper, not a man nor woman. It was a silly way of illustrating that "hottest" has a few definitions, among them: "highest temperature", "most attractive", and "spiciest". -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: this is too ambiguous to really point anywhere. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hyperthermophile which discusses in general the organisms that can grow at extreme temperatures as well as indicating the current target as the organism with the highest known upper temperature conducive to growth. This article will also be updated if that record should be surpassed in the future. Alternatively, keep. This is a valid search term and should not be deleted, and users are highly unlikely to be using the term in a sexual attractiveness or spicy food context when combined with such a broad term as 'life'. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect was created in 2009, but pageview stats only go back to 2015. From the earliest available date until 19 September 2019 (just before the first RfD), this redirect was viewed a total of 75 times with a daily average of zero. If you include stats up to the most recent date, the total increases to 169, but this is inflated by 2 RfDs boosting the traffic; yet despite that, the daily average remains zero. The number of people helped by this redirect is negligible; it's just not a plausible search term.
My second preference would be to retarget per Mdewman6. For spicy peppers and attractive people the expected terms would be something like "hottest food" and "hottest people" respectively. "Hottest life" would be an extremely bizarre way to search for peppers or human beings; being technically correct doesn't make them plausible interpretations, so I don't agree with the "vague" argument.
I think "hottest life" is more suggestive of a crude search for organisms which either: 1. have the hottest known body temperature (ie. curious how hot endotherms can get); or, 2. inhabit the hottest known environment (ie. curious about extremophiles). I doubt Wikipedia has content on the former, but it does have content on the latter. The later also appears to be the creator's intended interpretation. Hyperthermophile would probably be the best target for the ≈ 0 people who could be expected to search this, if the redirect isn't deleted. – Scyrme (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hyperthermophile per Mdewman6. I'm sorry, but are you really going to search "hottest life" to try and find a pepper or sexy people? Those just aren't realistic search terms. I'm not totally opposed to deletion, but just low view counts isn't a good basis for deletion. If it's a search term that's unambiguous (which in my opinion, it should be, or at least Hyperthermophile should contain all other potential targets), and it's a search term that could potentially ever be used (even if it's not getting a view a day, it's still getting very occasional views, hence people are actually looking at it), there's no real reason to delete. You can probably make a case based on WP:R#D8, but I think it's better to keep around. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graeme Bartlett: Would you object to retargetting to Hyperthermophile (which links to Methanopyrus and Strain 121)? – Scyrme (talk) 21:16, 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).

Trespassing[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 Trespass to land, with hatnote. The Trespass situation can be sorted out at a future RfD or RM if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Trespass" article discusses three very different types of action that are referred to as "trespass" in tort law. I wasn't aware that there are three different actions that are commonly referred to (outside of The Lord's Prayer) as "trespass", so I learned something new. But I'm still under the impression that only one of those three, trespass to land, is commonly called "trespassing". The Wiktionary entry for wikt:trespassing confirms my impression that there is one dominant meaning for that gerund. I thus suggest retargeting the "Trespassing" redirect (and the "Tresspassing" misspelling as well) to Trespass to land. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nom. You might consider {{hatnote|"Trespassing" redirects here; it should not be confused with other types of trespass.}} Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That hatnote makes it sound like it's a mistake to use "trespassing" in reference to trespassing against someone or their belongings, as oppose to their land, but that's not true. The only reason "trespassing" is primary used in reference to land is because all forms of word including "tresspasses", "trespassed", and "trespass" itself are largely confined to land in non-technical, general speech outside limited contexts in which dated phrases are retained as the norm for reasons of tradition or convention (ie. law, prayer). Being uncommon doesn't make it incorrect or confused. – Scyrme (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom and User:Shhhnotsoloud's proposed hatnote --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the same rationale of most common use of the word, wouldn't Trespass to land be the primary topic for "trespass" itself? Searching the term online on my end brings up mostly results related to land or to Trespass (clothing), but even the latter is a reference to "trespassing to land" since the company deals primary in camping/hiking gear, outdoor-clothing, etc. If this is retargeted, perhaps the current target should be moved to Trespass (law)? Maybe make Trespass as disambiguation page which links Trespass to land as the primary topic, and then lists the other two meaning at Trespass (law) and Trespass to chattels? – Scyrme (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 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).

292,277,026,296[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

None of these numbers are currently mentioned anywhere in the target (they used to but have since either been corrected as a typo in the case of 292,277,026,296 or removed as WP:OR for the other two cases).

So, they should all be deleted for the same reason that 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 was deleted back in 2021. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No longer mentioned in target. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_12&oldid=1224463954"