Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2023.

Wikipedia:M/R[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Wikipedia:M/R

W. Peter Iliff[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, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is to Point Break because Iliff wrote that screenplay, but the article has no information beyond that. The problem is that Iliff has also written or co-written other films and TV series such as Rites of Passage (2012 film), Peter Gunn and Patriot Games (film) so redirecting to Point Break is a little arbitrary. Pichpich (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom to promote article creation. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES and allow search to work. Although in a quick Google search shows it's very likely and not hard to make a start-class article for the subject, so I have no objections to someone (maybe me!) expanding this before the 7 day window is over. Skynxnex (talk) 20:13, 22 May 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).

Cult scale[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Cult scale

John Major-Ball[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) J947 † edits 03:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous; thus unnecessary redirect. Almost never refereed to with the double-barrelled surname except for once at school (which feels too minor for comprehension) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator - His father was Tom Major-Ball. At his grammar school, he was registered as "John Major-Ball"; the article even admits this: "In 1954 John passed the 11+ exam, enabling him to go to Rutlish School, a grammar school in Merton Park, though to John's chagrin his father insisted that he register as 'John Major-Ball'". It's how Major was referred to at some point in his life, which makes it a worthy redirect. If we can have Liz O'Leary and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as redirects, we can definitely have John Major-Ball. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being unambiguous is not a good reason to delete alternate names that are also unambiguous, -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as it's technically his name, even if not used much, and is explained in the article. Clear case of a valid {{R from alternative name}}/{{R from full name}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mentioned in the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no valid reason to delete has been advanced and per the above. "Unambiguous; thus unnecessary redirect" is a worrying thing to see in a nomination. A7V2 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not seeing a reason to delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 24 May 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).

Mobile World (mobile phone operator)[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 10:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The (unsourced) mention of "Mobile World" was removed by an IP [1] in 2011, and with out a (preferably sourced) mention it is confusing as to why this redirect points here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 20 May 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).

Alphabet mafia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Alphabet mafia

Gambhorra'ta[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

supposedly a character in the game, but not mentioned in the article or shown to be significant. WP:GAMECRUFT? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pe nom. Veverve (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The reason I created the redirect is because it's not obvious to one playing the game that the character is original to The Stanley Parable, and this could help to clarify that. I myself initially thought it was a reference to some obscure deity. Infromerr (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still cruft as much as a name of a game level/scenario. If notable, should be mentioned in the gameplay or plot. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a vague target is marginally better than nothing in my opinion. J947 † edits 01:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in target. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in target, and pure WP:GAMECRUFT. Redirects are meant to help readers find information about the subject (via the title) that they searched for, and redirecting through a character not proven to be notable or even significant enough for a mention is not helpful. The Night Watch (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the little information this conveys [this is a topic related to and likely originating from The Stanley Parable] is more helfpul than blank search results, yes? J947 † edits 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mention is added and justified. We should not be taking searchers to a page containing nothing about what they searched for. A7V2 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No incoming links. Delete per A7V2 and gamecruft per The Night Watch. Jay 💬 16:16, 27 May 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).

Patrol rifle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Patrol rifle

Brunswick three[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Brunswick three

Mitchell Morgan[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 Temple University. ✗plicit 10:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source that says the originator of the cocktail, or the fictional character, are called or known as "Mitchell". If there is, this ought to point to Mitch Morgan not the disambiguation page (which is PRODed). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 20 May 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).

MathematicsAndStatistics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#MathematicsAndStatistics

Kirisakin[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 List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes#Season 3 (2002–03). No objection has emerged. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 06:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. AGAIN. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 20 May 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).

WolfWrath[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 List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes#Season 1 (2001–02). No objection has emerged. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 06:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:31, 20 May 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).

48th Saturn Awards[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best left as a WP:REDLINK. Those who may search for the 48th Saturn Awards would not expect to be redirected to the 47th. Alternatively, redirect to Saturn Awards and tag with the "r with possibilities" redirect category. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slight preference to the possible retarget to Saturn Awards tagged with possibilities. But deletion is fine too per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Skynxnex (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is no discussion of the 48th awards at Saturn Awards so targeting there would not be appropriate. No prejudice whatsoever about an article being created. A7V2 (talk) 02:23, 23 May 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).

WLWT building[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 WLWT#The Crosley/Avco years. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 02:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WLWT building does not appear in the article that this redirect points to. Did a quick Google search and this building did not come up. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. Also, notified of the discussion at the talk pages of List of Cincinnati Local Historic Landmarks and WLWT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:14, 20 May 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:PYRZQXGL[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. The nominator has explained the purpose of the redirect in its lack of meaning. SK1. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of pyrzqhgl? I don't know. It makes me think that the redirect can be deleted. Q𝟤𝟪 07:01, 20 May 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 with "(diambiguation)"[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 23:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples of WP:RDAB. Redirects like these are not helpful, because titles ending in "(disambiguation)" aren't natural search terms. Currently, no other redirect contains this specific typo. Delete as housekeeping. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both: Redirects are cheap and they are harmless. Kornatice (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kornatice. Bringing these to RfD increases the maintenance they cause – otherwise negligible – significantly. J947 † edits 02:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. I had searched for every single typo of "(disambiguation)" in the form of:
    • Doubled letters (e.g. (disaambiguation));
    • Omitted letters (e.g. (disambigution));
    • Switching between two letters (e.g. (dismabiguation));
    • Permutations between the letters and their spatially close letters in my keyboard (e.g. (disambkguation));
    and the only other example I could come up with was Rogério Lobo (dsambiguation), which I also considered nominating for deletion. Certainly the cost of deleting such redirects every few months is negligible. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a much much larger negligible! The ratio redirectharm:redirectbroughttoRFDharm remains constant no matter how many of these redirects are involved. J947 † edits 04:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as standard examples of WP:RDAB. Neither of them are particularly helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When considering deleting a page, we should consider whether Wikipedia will be better or worse without it. These redirects do benefit Wikipedia in a small way, by taking people where the expect to go. It's not like someone typing "Borer (diambiguation)" could possibly mean anything else. Also, WP:RDAB says nothing about deleting pages, it only says there is "no need" for them. Are these needed? Not really. But would it be needed or productive to delete them? Certainly not. Kornatice (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and funnily enough, that very same essay says these redirects shouldn't be sent to RfD. J947 † edits 21:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also says redirects containing typos (unless they are "common") can be speedily deleted, which is not what you are suggesting in this case. Keeping such things around seems to me to be counterproductive, by your own logic (i.e., exists = potential time waster in the future). It would be more logical to encourage either delete-on-sight or SOFIXIT, depending on whether the "fixed" version already exists. In this case, Borer (disambiguation) and Ronaldo (disambiguation) both exist, so I say, Delete both. (Both of the nominated redirects, of course I meant.) - dcljr (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be better to speedy delete these if they are at all deleted, but I reject the notion that they should be deleted in the first case. Not particularly helpful ≠ harmful. Not sure what you mean by SOFIXIT – if you propose the redirects should be moved then that obfuscates history and can only be done without leaving the redirect behind by a page mover or admin anyway. Only recently-created redirects can be speedy deleted as it stands, because old redirects can accrue backlinks. It has been a matter of conjecture anyway as to whether one-error redirects like so count as implausible. I might also point out a minuscule portion of redirects get sent to RfD at all – there are 10.5 million mainspace redirects. I prefer a course of action to discourage RfDs for misspellings being created. J947 † edits 04:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But like I said, in effect you're saying it's harmful, not me. (?!) Anyway… "SOFIXIT" in this case would mean moving the redirect to the correct spelling (when possible) without leaving a redirect behind (of course). I don't see how that "obfuscates history". Page moves are precisely how history is preserved (in a very obvious way). And just to clarify, what I am suggesting is that a misspelling of the term "(disambiguation)" in any page title, redirect or not, should be presumed (by definition, as part of our guidelines) to be something that we don't have to "support" (i.e., keep a redirect around for). After all, to argue that these two redirects should be kept is essentially to argue that any redirect whose title ends in a simple mistyping of "(disambiguation)" should be kept, regardless of the term being disambiguated (assuming it doesn't qualify for deletion for some other reason). That seems silly to me. Note that I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarify R3 regarding misspellings of "(disambiguation)" along these lines. - dcljr (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just touch on one point: a redirect is its title. Moving it changes that primary characteristic; effectively, it becomes a new redirect with some stray history appended of a different one. J947 † edits 03:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Why is this a problem? - dcljr (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For one the person who created the redirect is not listed as page creator – can lead to misunderstandings. Not massively important, but confusing to the average editor – it's just cleaner to delete it and create a new one. J947 † edits 11:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: misspelling, so clear WP:RDAB. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the spirit of WP:RDAB, and per other similar redirects that have been deleted in the past. See: 1, 2 and 3. CycloneYoris talk! 23:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that searches like "Austin (disabiguation)" or even "Austin (diabiguation)" (with two typos) turn up the page Austin (disambiguation) when the latter page exists, so these kinds of typo-redirects are completely unnecessary. - dcljr (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of redirects is to save clicks. J947 † edits 03:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many purposes for redirects. Saving clicks is probably the least compelling of them. - dcljr (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at completely unnecessary. On compellingness, not to mention how these redirects should be deleted if they come up at RfD to save the maintenance burden caused by them appearing at RfD. J947 † edits 11:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronaldo (diambiguation) was tagged for CSD G6 immediately after creation, but the speedy tag was removed by the creator. This should have been reversed, it didn't happen, so now do the delayed deletion. Delete Borer (diambiguation) per Shhhnotsoloud. Jay 💬 14:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who placed that tag did it under the false assumption that I had created it without seeing the misspelling. Since I created it intentionally, G6 does not apply. Kornatice (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not have removed the tag, but you are allowed to contest the crieria based deletion. An admin would have probably removed the G6 and placed R3 instead. Jay 💬 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion does say "The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6 [et al.]" And R3 would not apply either, as it is for "implausible typos", while this is completely plausible. Kornatice (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right on G6, my apologies! Jay 💬 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you create it, Kornatice? What makes that typo-redirect any more necessary than a billion other possible similar redirects? - dcljr (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I created it is that I typed "Ronaldo (diambiguation)" into the URL, looking for the Ronaldo page. And as for what makes it more necessary than any similar page, well, nothing, but it's the one I happened to decide to create. Kornatice (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; missed letter redirects should be used for accomodate and similar; spellings where people might genuinely believe that they have entered the correct spelling and thus be unable to correct the error. When the letter was missed as an accident it results in an implausible redirect, and one that the reader can easily correct by looking at what they typed - and creating redirects for such accidents will result in an absurd proliferation of redirects. For example, all of the following:
    1. Borer (isambiguation)
    2. Borer (dsambiguation)
    3. Borer (diambiguation)
    4. Borer (dismbiguation)
    5. Borer (disabiguation)
    6. Borer (disamiguation)
    7. Borer (disambguation)
    8. Borer (disambiuation)
    9. Borer (disambigation)
    10. etc
Would be valid. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a chance someone types that spelling then it is "plausble". And the prospect of a few more redirects isn't harmful enough to justify deleting these. Kornatice (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Noting your reply to me directly above BilledMammal's !vote…) I'm sorry, but that is a crazy position to take. If we follow your logic, then we wouldn't be talking about "a few more redirects"; we would be talking about potentially millions of redirects (replace "Borer" in BilledMammal's list with literally any other term — note that we currently have about 215,000 disambiguation pages, so there's 215,000 possibilities right there). What you are suggesting here simply cannot be our guiding principle. (!!!) (BTW, I just mistyped the word "Category" while looking up the number of disambig pages we have. Does that mean I should create the redirect "Catagory:Disambiguation pages" just in case someone else does that in the future? Where does it end??) - dcljr (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
​Indeed! The reason why redirects from arbitrary typos (as opposed to common misspellings) are often pointless is because simple Wikipedia search covers almost all of them in a much broader and more efficient way (e.g. showing multiple results) without the drawbacks of having to fix links to sections or update rcats. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not likely to be used at search, as typing in "Borer (di" would generate the correct ones. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:47, 30 May 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_May_20&oldid=1159172696"