Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2023.

Jews deportation[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 Expulsions and exoduses of Jews. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are several times in history when Jews were deported. As well, if kept, it should probably point towards the deportation section. 162.83.141.156 (talk) 21:59, 21 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).

Wire guidance[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, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missiles are not the only things that can be wire-guided. Other wire-guided projectiles include torpedoes and submersibles. The French Wikipedia has a broad article on wire guidance, and so could we, so we should delete these all per WP:REDYES. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now per WP:WTAF - These redirects are useful as-is, and nothing would be served by deleting them now. There are other methods to get an broad overview article created if the OP isn't able to do it themselves (which they aren't required to do, nor should they be). Writing it from scratch is beyond my area of expertise, and I have no knowledge of French, and I don't write machine-translated articles. There are French speakers on Wikipedia, and one of them might be interested in doing a translation. Also, an editor at WP:MIL might also be in doing a scratch article, as the major applications are military. BilCat (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WTAF is about inclusion of links in certain kinds of article. There is a longstanding tradition that if a redirect is about a notable topic and the target article does not expound on that topic (as with many cases of a broad topic redirecting to a subtopic), we should delete to encourage article creation (or at a minimum the addition of a section somewhere). This has happened even with some very high-profile titles, e.g. Anti-white racism (RfD). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. The current situation is analogous to redirecting laser guidance to laser guided bomb. Broad redirects only make sense if we have a sufficiently encompassing target to which to point them, otherwise they can lead to astonishment. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Side note: With the way the redirects are structured, I'm surprised they are not WP:X1s. I remember those days...) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 26 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).

Tere Ishq Ke Naam[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 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently targeted to an actress that appears in the television program; could equally target Nida Mumtaz and Munazzah Arif. All three targets would be misleading, as none contain sufficient information about the program. Unless this can be expanded into an article- and based on my cursory searches, I don't think it can- I would suggest this be deleted as misleading. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:21, 21 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).

Old Earth (Dune)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Old Earth (Dune)

Mars (Doctor Who)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Mars (Doctor Who)

2023–24 1. FC Heidenheim season[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 00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red link to encourage page creation. The redirect was created back in March, way too prematurely. Dl.thinker (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to encourage article creation where appropriate. And most are not mentioned at target anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. Preemptively redirect future events makes little sense, as maybe there will be enough for an article and a red link is better suited. Also the target articles should not have detailed season-by-season information anyway - Nabla (talk) 23:24, 26 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).

Measuring phonemes[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) 16:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the section this redirect targets, this subject of this redirect actually refers to Linguistic anthropology#First paradigm: anthropological linguistics ... if anything. However, this article in general doesn't discuss this subject in sufficient detail, but it doesn't seem as though Phoneme does either, so I'm defaulting to delete here. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder whether this might result from a misunderstanding of the currently linked article. Anthropological linguistics didn't (doesn't) "measure" phonemes so much as catalog and compare languages' phonological inventories (among other things). Cnilep (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean and I'm the creator so perhaps that is the problem. I'm surprised to learn
  • Go to place
  • Record linguistics data
isn't common. Anthropologists only do after field cataloging & comparison? Invasive Spices (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We must be talking at cross purposes. I don't understand your question. More importantly, I don't understand what "measuring phonemes" could mean in any literal sense. While speech sounds are recorded, a phoneme is "generally regarded as an abstraction of a set of speech sounds that are perceived as equivalent" and is therefore not in any place, available to record. Cnilep (talk) 06:49, 26 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).

Tulsi Gabbard's position on the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes[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) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several politicians mentioned in the target section, making it a bit cumbersome for readers who may search this term expecting to clearly know where this subject is located, only to have to still skim for a minute or two to find .. the one sentence in the sea of sentences and politician mentioned in this section. So, probably delete this redirect as somewhat unhelpful and, though I'm not sure how notable this subject may be, WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 21 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).

FCC standards[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 unrefine. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FCC does more than just content regulation; it also regulates aspects of technology regarding radio wave frequencies other entires can use and/or have access to. To pigeonhole readers into this section is misleading, but I'm not sure if this redirect should be deleted or if it should be weak retargeted to Federal Communications Commission (without the section redirect). (Note: A similar title, FCC regulations, does not exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 21 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).

Conservation status of Bombyx mori[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) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's in the infobox, and that's it. Readers looking for more information about this subject at the target article will be sadly disappointed. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Organizations that do assessments of conservation statuses don't assess domesticated species. There is never going to be any content discussing the conservation status of domesticated silk moths, and it's arguably WP:OR to even have DOM as a status in the infobox (although I suppose DOM status is somewhat useful to flag organisms that will never have an assessed status, as opposed to the thousands of organisms that don't yet have an assessed status but could have a status one day). Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As pointed out, it's domesticated, it never will have any conservation status. Dyanega (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted, a redirect implies a reasonably informative destination, not a single word. And for a domesticated species, this is like Conservation status of poodles. Largoplazo (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this redirect suggests we should open up WP:PANDORA such that every article about an organism should have "Conservation status of [genus] [species]" redirects, even if the conservation status is not noteworthy (as is typically the case for a domesticated animal) and/or not discussed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not discussed at the target. I don't have any issue with similar redirects where the conservation status is of some importance (ie if there is a section discussing conservation/etc). A7V2 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 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).

Mexican hate group[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) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found this tagged for speedy deletion as "attack page", but I don't think it qualifies. I don't know if it is meant to be about a hate group made of Mexicans or a group of people hating Mexicans; in any case, it seems to have little connection to the target, but is old enough that RFD is the best option. —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I thought this redirect met WP:G10 because of the obvious negative connotations of "hate group" and the fact that most groups mentioned in the article cannot be considered as such. But regardless, the target is misleading, because a reader entering "Mexican hate group" is most likely searching for hate groups operating in Mexico than a list of Chicano organizations, so it's kind of a WP:SURPRISE situation.
Only one group in the list can be reasonably labelled a "hate group", and it doesn't have an article. I also can't find any suitable target. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. I would expect it to lead to information on hate groups in Mexico. We have no such article, nor is there any mention of Mexico in Hate groups, which is where the redirect could lead if there were a section there about Mexico. But Mexico has no mention in that article. Largoplazo (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: misleading redirect with no suitable retarget option. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading at best with no suitable target. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:05, 27 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).

Drovers (Fictonal Farm)[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 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page used to be an article about Drovers Run at the time it was created, after which it was redirected to the current target by Daniel99091. I'm not sure we should still have this lying around either, since it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays since the move compared to the target and the correctly spelled Drovers (fictional farm). Regards, SONIC678 01:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Histmerge. Sonic678, if you look at the page histories you'll see that what happened was that Daniel99091 made a cut & paste move, which broke the attribution of the content's creation. The original page must not be deleted, and the issue needs to be fixed by a WP:history merge. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging history as nom to fix this matter. @Paul 012: Thanks for pointing it out-I didn't really consider that option when I nominated the redirect. Regards, SONIC678 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge is now  Done, the relevant revisions prior to the cut-and-paste move have been merged into the history of Drovers Run. DanCherek (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I have no opinion regarding the remaining redirect. It is now effectively an r from move, which generally should be retained, but it's old and miscapitalised, so there's really no harm in deleting, now that the discussion is open. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a historical redirect that is cheap and doesn't do much harm. I don't know if there are any incoming external links out there, but this would break them. (I'm also not convinced the target is notable, but that's a separate discussion.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 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) 04:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now that histmerge has been done, the typo in the disambiguator makes this very unlikely. (Also, the target should not exist as a standalone page, but that is a separate discussion). —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that histmerge has been done. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: histmerge has been completed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 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).

Gun politics in Indonesia[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 no consensus. ✗plicit 07:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gun politics" is a US-centric term. The target sections only cover gun control laws, and makes no mention of gun ownership being a political issue in Indonesia or Israel. Delete as misleading/unhelpful redirects. Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC), 08:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are loads of Gun politics in Foo redirects that point various ways. They should also be examined, but I'm not doing that right now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing a good reason to delete. Nominator asserts that "Gun politics" is a US-centric term. That sounds more like an ENGVAR issue than anything else, so K3 would likely apply here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I should have said gun politics doesn't really exist outside the US. As 59.149.117.119 pointed out, they are different (if related) topics, and readers aren't served by these redirects to targets that mention nothing of the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if technically different, they seem sufficiently related enough to make these terms plausible. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a WP:ENGVAR issue. The word "politics" means the same thing in all Anglophone countries, and the target sections don't discuss politics at all (e.g. public debates, proposals by legislators for changes to existing laws, etc.). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are laws not political? See, e.g. Category:Gun politics, which appears to be the overarching category here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The country subcats under that category are being proposed for deletion/merging, as the term does not reflect their contents. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, "politics of" connotes not laws as they are but to ongoing discourse and debate on laws and policies, and to activities (rallies, riots, boycotts, bombings, etc.) related thereto and their impact. For instance, every country has a law as to what side of the road people are allowed to drive on. Nevertheless, "politics of the side of the road to drive on" is pretty much an empty topic except with respect to the rare occasions when a consideration arises of switching from one side to the other. "Politics of the driving side of the road in the United States" is a non-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middling-weak keep. At least in democracies, which both of these countries are, laws are an extension of politics. As such, these are not misleading targets, while the search terms are plausible. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:21, 20 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) 04:15, 21 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).

Reign of Marcus[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 no consensus. ✗plicit 07:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. ★Trekker (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment at the minimum it should be re-targeted to Marcus (name)#Government since apparently the section was renamed. The most plausible retarget to me is Reign of Marcus Aurelius since Aurelius is probably the most likely person people are searching for and as far as I can find, the only article that contains "Reign of Marcus" but there are sufficient emperors and similar in the government section who would have "reigns" staying as a redirect to the disambiguation also makes sense to me. Skynxnex (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 13 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) 04:14, 21 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).

Yunfei (Samurai Shodown)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Yunfei (Samurai Shodown)

Oceangate Tower[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) 03:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained redirect. Who calls this Oceangate? Schierbecker (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, from article history, there is a reference to a skyscrapernews.com entry on a different skyscraper, which mentions a "Swansea's 'Oceangate' tower (107m)" which is "expected to see construction in 2006/2007". This matches up with the Meridian Quay's height and construction start period, but I don't know whether that's enough to narrow down whether this is the same building. Randi🦋TalkContribs 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that in the article history. I would say that it is likely the same building, but that there is enough wiggle room that it is fully confirmed. {{R from former name}} and/or {{R from alternate names}} could apply if there was concrete proof. For now, it might be best that this ends up deleted with a possible chance that the future does give a proper reference that could be used to restore this. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find anything referring to Oceangate as a name for the building (though there are several national news articles which referred to it as Ferrara Tower) so it seems to be a name that never took hold. Sionk (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Even if it was a name originally used either by the developers, commercially, or both, as @Super Goku V and @Randi Mothhave said, it obviously didn’t pan out that way. As no one in recent history has used the term “OceanGate” to refer to this specific tower, this redirect should be deleted. Wikentromere (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the two building names are likely not related and even if they there there is not enough merit for this redirect to be kept. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_21&oldid=1163348693"