Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2021.

Ultimately dark[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 00:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term, and caused by an inappropriate page move. aeschylus (talk) 22:18, 29 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.

Dream oath opera[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 00:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's a synonym for a fictional opera within the game "Opera "Maria and Draco"". I think it's obscure since the term isn't even used in game --Lenticel (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a very thin relationship to FFVI. This redirect would puzzle even a fan of the game. Alan Islas (talk) 04:05, 31 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.

Athrogate[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 The Ghost King. ✗plicit 00:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, mentioned very briefly at a handful of FR-related topics, deletion to allow for search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Ghost King: As far as I have seen, there is the most extensive description on Wikipedia. While I see the merit of getting all the hits, this one currently has, again as far as I have seen, significantly more than the other mentions. A redirect there therefore avoids having to click through the less helpfull hits. Daranios (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. BOZ (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the target suggested by the first reply. I think the redirect to the page mentioned makes more sense if that page has more detailed info than the page I redirected to initially when creating the page. Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:05, 2 September 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.

Keys to power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Keys to power

Category:Eschatology in norse mythology[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 06:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unneeded soft redirect resulting from a typo. Should have been deleted when moved as they usually are. MClay1 (talk) 14:32, 29 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.

The original picante sauce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 5#The original picante sauce

Georges Bergès[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 13:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is not a reasonable target, and there is a person (art dealer) by that name who is possibly notable and could have an article here. Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Clearly not the WP:PTOPIC for that name, I don't see any uses of that name to refer to the fencer. This feels like a clerical error.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:29, 4 September 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.

German officers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#German officers

Shitting duck of France[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 13:16, 5 September 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.

Interstate 76 and Interstate 676[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 06:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search terms. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bundled similar nominations made by Imzadi1979 which had an identical rationale. CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlikely search terms. Dough4872 12:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a better question is why these terms are disambiguated this way in the first place. If the Delaware Expressway is a notable road, we should have an article about that road specifically, not redirects to the various markers assigned to it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​Ideally, you're right, but many US road article titles violate WP:COMMONNAMES because active editors and WikiProject guidelines hold that road notability and road article names (with a few exceptions) derive from official numerical designations and not real-world usage. —  AjaxSmack  01:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the 76/676 to Interstate 676 as it has history on how they interact with each other. Redirect the 95/495 to Interstate 495 as it appears that each of those state versions interacts with I-95. Redirect the NJ route 42 one to New Jersey Route 42 as that has details on the combined project. Redirect the 95/295 one to Interstate 295 for same reasons as 495. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY, these are distinct routes. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:44, 29 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.

Interstate 99 in the United States[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 13:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
rest of the list

The United States is the only country that uses an Interstate Highway system. There is therefore no reason to specify a country because there are no other countries to distinguish this from. As such, there is no reason to search using this term, making these implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. ComplexRational (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—implausible. Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting to expand upon my reasoning: First, the US is the only country to have Interstate (capital I) Highways by that name. In the other federal countries, highways that cross state lines are named differently. Second, JohnFromPinkney encapsulates the reason that these are most implausible: someone would have to keep typing past the redirect target to get any of these titles in the search bar. If a reader was looking for "Interstate 70" (and not "Interstate 70 in Colorado"), he or she would have already found that result in the suggestions before adding "in the United States" to the search. Given both of these factors, I find the redirects to be implausible search terms. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 12:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - these are all unambiguous and point to the correct targets. While the United States is the only country with a road network called "Interstate Highway System", it is not true that it's the only country with highways that run across subnational political divisions, nor are Interstate Highways the only numbered roads in the United States that cross state lines. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. If I start to search for "Interstate 96", the target article comes up first in the search box as I type. If I continue typing " in", I get a bunch of "Interstate 96 in Michigan", "...in Maryland", etc., offerings. It seems highly implausible that somebody would pass these options and insist on typing "Interstate 96 in the" to get the basic information about I-96, a roadway in, yes, the United States. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I came across these and was considering starting a discussion here about them until I stumbled across this one. Nobody is going to take the extra time to write "in the United States" after an article title that arleady takes them where they want to go, and there is no instance of an Interstate highway leaving the United States. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Ivanvector. Anecdotally, lots of people, particularly elder ones, do not accept search suggestions and type out the whole thing. It would likely be quicker for some fast typists to finish what they are typing rather than move their cursor and click. Moreover, some of these redirects lead to dab pages. In that case, specifying could be more likely. On a different note, many people likely do not know that there are only capital-I Interstate system in the US, therefore they may unnecessarily specify. This also applies to those who don't know Wikipedia naming systems: over-specifying is likely. Given all these reasons, I think a fair few readers will make use of these redirects. If readers use these redirects, then deleting them will only serve to harm their navigation. Which is exactly what we don't want to happen. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Ivanvector. Redirects are cheap and these are technically correct. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the titles are technically correct from a running prose perspective (e.g. "Whilst on holiday, I drove on Interstate 75 in the United States."), these names are contrary to the normal usage of "XXX in Place" road titles at Wikipedia. Such titles are used when a single road passes through multiple states and there are separate articles on these sections (e.g. Interstate 75 in Florida). While highly unlikely, the titles in question here could imply that these interstates cross an international border and continue under the same name in another country (à la U.S. Route 93 and Alberta Highway 93). —  AjaxSmack  01:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These redirects are redundant in a way that could cause confusion. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and others. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom Imzadi1979's expanded rationale. These would make sense if the situations were reveresed ("Interstate XX" redirecting to "Interstate XX in the United States"). But since the article name and common name are both "Interstate XX" and there is not another system of interstate highways elsewhere in the world using 'interstate' in its naming, I find it highly illogical that anyone would type out these search terms. -- LJ ↗ 17:52, 4 September 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.

Nimitz Hill (geography)[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 Nimitz Hill (geographic feature). MBisanz talk 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unhelpful to redirect something somewhere that has no information on the subject. The target mentions Nimitz Hill Annex, but not the actual hill. The Nimitz Hill Annex and Nimitz Hill (CDP) article both have the phrase contains the geographic feature of Nimitz Hill, with this redirect linked, but no other discussion of the actual hill either. It looks like someone wants an actual article here, so this should be a WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation and limit confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument to make here. Colour Vision (album) is a cromulent redirect because one would be able to learn about that album at the target article: MAX's album, Colour Vision, was released on September 18, 2020. For the hill, you can assume that it's in Guam from where you've ended up, but the article does not explicitly tell you that—you'd have to click through to Nimitz Hill Annex. However, if you're already searching with "(geography)", you would already be aware there is a locale and would want specific information on the hill, and would end up disappointed by the lack of such information. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom to encourage article creation. If the target has no information on the subject, then this redirect is completely unhelpful. CycloneYoris talk! 05:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nimitz Hill (geographic feature) per SpinningSpark below. CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How large is this hill? Is a separate article on it really practical? I see what we're going for here, and why Nimitz Hill (hill) looks undesirable, but the other topics are arguably geographical too. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What wording is best for the parenthetical disambiguation of the actual article is a separate issue for an RM discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 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.

Taliban offensive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Taliban offensive

Going Nowhere (Kings of Leon song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 5#Going Nowhere (Kings of Leon song)

Khafif[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. MBisanz talk 19:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another article unilaterally redirected by TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) to a target that no longer mentioned this subject, allegedly the founder of the Soomra dynasty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Careless of the nominator to not read a significant line — Soomro historians regarded their first sultan to be Khafif, although modern research suggests that Khafif was the last Habbari sultan — in the target article which might not be factually accurate but covers the topic.
  • There was one regional overlord named Khafif (c. early eleventh century) who was chased out of his capital and defeated by Mahmud of Ghazni. The context of this battle/conflict and the immediate aftermath is unclear (absence of inscriptions and contemporary literature) but on balance of probabilities, it does not look like the region remained under Mahmud's control for long. The rest — Khalif being the last Habbari or the first Soomra or some local chieftain — is pure speculation deriving of folklore.
  • Ahmad Hasan Dani writes,

    Sober history knows nothing about the early history of Soomras.

    The founder of the Soomra dynasty is named as Khafif who ruled for fifteen years (1011-1026 AD) from his new capital at Tharri in Matli Taluka. It is during his time that Sultan Mahmud invaded Sindh in order to crush the Jats who appeared to have sided with Khafif. It is said that he met his death during the battle by drowning himself. He was succeeded by his son Soomar, who ruled only for five years.

  • Lari, Suhail Zaheer (1994). "The Sumras". A History of Sindh. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press. pp. 45–46. ISBN 0195775011. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help) reiterates the same narrative. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 29 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.

Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III

Ror dynasty[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 procedrual close. Ror dynasty is now an article (again). I will retarget the other two redirects there. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these was unilaterally redirected yesterday for allegedly failing WP:GNG, and is not mentioned at the target. The latter two were former titles of that article. If the topic was in fact notable, massive cleanup will be needed to correct factual errors, original research, and poorly sourced content, some of it introduced by Ror caste fanatics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What is being disputed? Not even trivially mentioned in Lari, Suhail Zaheer (1994). A History of Sindh. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195775011. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: I didn't realize this at the time, but I actually could determine immediately that it failed GNG, getting zero hits in Google Scholar even under alternative names listed in the page history. The question now is, are there reliable sources confirming that the dynasty even existed? Nearly all the sources in the last revision were either myths/legends/fiction or self-published sources, and the one used in the introductory sentence does not mention this dynasty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    are there reliable sources confirming that the dynasty even existed, No. But I have read such (unsubstantiated) claims in local books when I traveled through the region c. early 2000. It is a plausible search-term. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to article. Take it to AfD after that if you like, but an article shouldn't be deleted on the technicality that it is now a useless redirect (and deletion is the only choice unless something is merged to the target). That's kind of a back door deletion. Creating redirects to pages with no information in order to hide an article you don't like is disruptive in my opinion. SpinningSpark 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process for the sake of process. Give me a single source. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article has fairly quickly been recreated at this location. This should definitely now be a procedural close since there is no longer a redirect to discuss in the first case. This should always have been at AFD in the first place. The other two should be pointed back to the article. SpinningSpark 22:52, 6 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_29&oldid=1042839127"