Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2021.

Pearl shell[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Pearl shell

Pinocchio Syndrome[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 Lie detection#Non-verbal behavior. Thanks, Jay! -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what Pinocchio syndrome is (hence why I searched the term) but the target article doesn't reference or clarify it at all. With the target being such a broad topic, it gives me the impression that the redir was vague to begin with. Googling the term make it appear like some bodily signal of lying, primarily featured in Korean media... anyone can confirm? Where would be better to point this redir? Gaioa (T C L) 15:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget to Pinocchio (2014 TV series) where this is a main plot point. Outside this use, I find several unrelated ones. It seems to range from "hiccups while lying" which is based on the Korean TV series, to "a personality type that has both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder characteristics" and to "wanting to be a real boy". --Lenticel (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of highways numbered 4 Parkway[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 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be such a list in the target article. Hog Farm Talk 19:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 19:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dough. I'm not sure what this redirect was supposed to accomplish, or even what a proper use case for it would look like. Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this redirect to clear redlinks from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/New Jersey that was in Category:Road backlog but since there was no other route called "Route 4 Parkway" this is all it could be done. Dylpickle2k (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like maybe the redlink entry just needs to be removed from said project page then - creating redirects of questionable utility to clean a redlink from a project page seems rather dubious. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way to remove that one wiki link from the page is to delete that row since it's in a template for the project page. If the template gets edited, other rows will be affected as well. Since the Garden State Parkway was once planned on being designated as Route 4 Parkway, the main redirect and the other redirect links to the article apply. I don't see how removing that row would be beneficial since the project page is used for referencing for each highway that either existed or was once planned but other than that with the disambiguation link, there is no other option. Dylpickle2k (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then leave it as a redlink. Creating borderline useless redirects to make a project page look pretty is not helpful. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—totally unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 18:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a time that someone started publishing the most-searched terms we had no article for (I think in The Signpost), and after a few months it led to lots of creations like this: Cases where there was clearly no suitable target, but someone created it because they wanted to clear the backlog. Backlog lists are dangerous. Wikipedians are by our nature often completionists. But mainspace should never be a slave to the peculiarities of how something is set up in projectspace. In this case, the project page should be changed. This page is to coordinate redirects and ensure that they all exist is clearly bad advice if some of them should not exist. I would suggest adding ... if they need to, and then, for redlinks with no suitable target, adding a footnote explaining why they haven't been created. If the template isn't flexible enough for that, fix the template. (Looks like you could add {{{fn-1}}}, {{{fn-2}}}, etc., at the end of each line at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/New Jersey/njsr and its sister templates.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Jersey Route ACE[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 01:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect. People referring to the Atlantic City Expressway by its abbreviation will refer to it as either the A.C. Expressway, ACE, or ACX. There is also an official New Jersey route number for this highway, 446. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Jersey Route NJTP[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 01:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect. People referring to the New Jersey Turnpike by its abbreviation will refer to it as simply the "NJTP". There is also an official New Jersey route number for this highway, 700. Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Jersey Route GSP[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 01:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect. People referring to the Garden State Parkway by its abbreviation will refer to it as simply the "GSP". There is also an official New Jersey route number for this highway, 444. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New York State Route NYST[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 01:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect. People referring to the New York State Thruway by its abbreviation will refer to it as simply the "NYST". Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sarsidiot[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 01:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a soft redirect to wiktionary, and I couldn't find anything suggesting that wiktionary has content about "sarsidiot". This looks useless. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Raja Ror I[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Raja Ror I

Sky Living[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 procedural close as moot. Rillington has turned Sky Living into an article. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a separate article for Sky Living due to the channel being different in nature to Sky Witness, which replaced Sky Living in 2018. I did start a discussion on the talk page but there were no replies which i take as meaning that there are no objections. Therefore, can the redirect please be removed so that I can create the Sky Living page. Thank you. Rillington (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep why not develop a Sky Living section within the article? It's the same group just a different name brand. If it's too much to explain then you can request a size split, but so far it's not even a paragraph in explanation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rillington: If there is an article to be written here, you don't need RfD's permission to write it; simply overwrite the redirect. See Special:Diff/1038522270 for instance for the most recent example of someone doing that. We do sometimes delete redirects to encourage article creation, but I doubt you'd get consensus for that here, since it's a former name of the target article. If you would like to proceed with this RfD on that basis, let me know and I can finish the filing for you (you skipped a few steps). Otherwise it sounds like this can be procedurally closed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tamzin, thank you for your reply. As you say, I'm unlikely to get consensus here so please can you proceed with removing the redirect so that I can create a separate article for Sky Living. Rillington (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rillington: Can you explain what you mean by "remove the redirect"? Again, any editor is allowed to overwrite a redirect with an article. If you're having trouble accessing the redirect without getting, well, redirected, the trick is to add ?redirect=no to the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Living?redirect=no. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Living?action=edit for a direct edit link. Then when you're ready, just remove all content on that page and put your article there instead. (This is said without opinion on whether there should be a separate article there.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean by 'remove the direct' is to enable me to create an article for Sky living because as of now, if you type in Sky Living it redirects you to Sky Witness, with a note at the top of the article saying "redirected from Sky Living".
        @Rillington: Yes, so when you're ready to create the article, click this link and write it there. :) (For future reference, when you see the "redirected from" message, you can click on that link and it will take you to the redirect page, which can be freely edited like any other page by clicking edit or edit source.) Or if you'd rather, you can draft the article in your userspace and I can request that it be moved to where the redirect currently is. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nido Taniam Death Incident[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Nido Taniam Death Incident

Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church

Draft:Iracq[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Draft:Iracq

Draft:Hotle[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. Hotle has since been created, which just leaves delete amongst the options discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advised to take these here instead of WP:MfD. Not a useful redirect for 'hotel'. Also, 'Hotle' is a surname so people might be searching for that and not want to be redirected to an article on hotels. I propose outright deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regardless of whether or not Hotle should redirect to Hotel we don’t need Draft:Hotle.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close this needs to be serviced at WP:AFC/R not here, and let this die 6 months or CSD G6 housekeeping after redirect is answered. There are some non-notable people mentioned in articles named Hotle. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppressredirect move to Hotle per my logic in the above section. Google results suggest that it's a plausible misspelling, and we don't have any articles on any of the handful of halfway-notable people with it as their surname, so it's a valid redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Americanwaymag.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Americanwaymag.com

Brothers and Sisters in Christ[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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this phrase is mentioned at the target, it is not explained in detail, and is also mentioned at other articles. I think that deletion in order to allow for search results may be more appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moving the target to Body of Christ#The Church solves the problem. From a Christian POV the information contained in the subsection appears to be sufficient, definitely more info can be added by editors interested in exploring the topic in depth and at length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolicmahr (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Retargeting to the section would make things worse. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; do not refine - this exact phrase is (or used to be) spoken in the Catholic Mass as the Priest is preparing the Eucharist. It's one of those double-meaning symbolisms in the Catholic Church where the "Body of Christ" is both Jesus' physical body (the physical manifestation of God on Earth) and simultaneously all faithful members of the Church (who by accepting God's physical form will return to God once their life on Earth ends, or something like that, it's been a while). It's not ambiguous, it's cryptically symbolic. The current target explains this concept, and also disambiguates potential more specific reading within the lede. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - current target covers both Catholic and Protestant usage, this is a meaningful phrase in Christianity. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Centenary[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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a group of redirects points to the wrong target articles, is this a good place to discuss what should be the proper targets?

centenary & tricentenary redirect to different pages. Like mauve and umami, Bicentennial is a product description, by a business. Prior to the 1976 Bicentennial Commission for the anniversary of the founding of the USA, the USA government used the word centenary in its publications. I propose that Centennial, Bicentennial, Tricentennial, Quadricentennial, Quincentennial... etc, and Centenary Bicentenary Tricentenary Quadricentenary... etc content be merged to, and name redirected to, Anniversary. Perhaps, as a quick-fix, both Centennial and Anniversary should have hatnotes to each other. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brooder[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Brooder

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_11&oldid=1040149751"