Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2021.

Third Republic of Texas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#Third Republic of Texas

Estancia Grande[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#Estancia Grande

No waiting[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 Parking violation#Europe (refine the redirect). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One does not equal the other, no mention of "no waiting zones" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "No waiting" is a synonym of "no stopping", so on those grounds, the article does cover it (although not very well) since it depicts the sign for the latter. In any case, this is a helpful redirect as it points to the most relevant article we have. SpinningSpark 16:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No waiting could also refer to any immediate process. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too vague, too many possible meanings. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "No waiting" in common use means "No Parking": in fact the sign commonly known as "No parking" (as depicted in the article) is actually defined in UK as "No waiting" [1]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is "no stopping" and "no parking" for traffic control; -- "no waiting" is for not needing to wait in line. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No Waiting" is a common traffic restriction sign in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. SpinningSpark 13:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "no waiting" is a common advertisement for places that typically have queues, when there is a more rapid competitor, or a special time of day. For traffic there's "no parking", "no stopping", "no standing", "no idling" -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consider improving target article to reflect parking and waiting restrictions, not just violations. The UK Highway Code uses the term "waiting" as something distinct from "parking" or "stopping", as here re yellow lines. PamD 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "waiting" is not an activity restricted to vehicular traffic. And "no waiting" is also thus. Anything that targets traffic control or violations is therefore the wrong target. And per Rosguill. ;;; It would need to be a link to wiktionary or a dab page. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what other activities you have in mind, but if there are viable targets that would be an argument for conversion to a dab page, not deletion. SpinningSpark 13:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "No waiting" does not mean "no parking". But if it did, the term is not synonymous not is it the a primary sense. These are the common uses:
  • Attention shoppers. Register 5 is now open with no waiting.
  • Space Mountain didn't have a line, so we got on with no waiting.
It has to do with lines, not vehicle parking. Senator2029 【talk】 22:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong in that "no waiting" does mean "no parking". It is actually a more severe restriction than "no parking". This page explains the UK rules on no waiting and this page has examples of the signs and symbols used. None of your examples have a linked article, so there is nothing to disambiguate, and they all sound contrived to me. SpinningSpark 09:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now added something more substantial to the target article on this. SpinningSpark 17:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this really is just a British vs North American dialect difference, I don't have a problem with deferring to the Brits and keeping. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section Parking violation#Europe, as this is only mentioned in that specific section.-- Aervanath (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Aervanath. None of the other examples of "no waiting" that people have given are likely to be things people search for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per above as that appears to be the only use of the phrase as a technical term for a specific thing (rather than in a generic sense). I'm wondering though, is there any chance people might use this search phrase when looking for Loitering? – Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Aervanath. --Heanor (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (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.

Etymology of the Punjab, Pakistan, etc.[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 mixed:

Useless redirects. There is no such thing as "etymology of Punjab, Pakistan", etc. – etymologies can only be of single words. A series of "etymology" redirects proposed for creation by an IP editor, possibly as a natural language query (which Wikipedia is not expected to answer). Only crowding the Search box. — kashmīrī TALK 23:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 10#Talk:Etymology of Islamabad, Pakistan. ― Qwerfjkltalk 23:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants in previous discussion: @Hog Farm @Eureka Lott ― Qwerfjkltalk 23:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree. Useless redirects per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They're no useless redirects. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Comr Melody Idoghor created these redirects. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed. Firstly phrases and multi-word names can and do have etymologies, secondly these are plausible search terms given the titling of our articles - not everywhere with the same name has the same etymology. However our content about these varies, so:
    • Delete Gilgit–Baltistan as we don't appear to have any information about the etymology of this place.
    • Keep Sindh and Balochistan as the redirects lead directly to etymologies of these places.
    • Retarget Punjab to Punjab#Etymology where all our information about the topic is located. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "etymology of this place"??? Firstly, places don't have etymologies; words (names) do. Secondly, the study of toponyms is called toponymy. Thirdly and most importantly, a search term "Etymology of Balochistan, Pakistan" should lead the user both to "Etymology of Balochistan" and to "Etymology of Pakistan", which is impossible and is the main problem with these pointless titles of "Etymology of A + B". — kashmīrī TALK 08:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per @Idoghor Melody:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.76 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep or Retarget but oppose any deletion per @Idoghor Melody:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.76 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disagree with nominator, I don't think these are useless redirects & there is no benefit in deletion. Ytpks896 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Thryduulf said. Even if etymology is technically inaccurate, these are plausible searches for the three terms for which we have information. - Eureka Lott 03:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a search engine please. It's not there to answer natural language queries - fortunately. — kashmīrī TALK 23:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there was an ANI thread about the IP who requested these redirects: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:E82E:415A:9A9E:8C4F & User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:956F:C209:DF37:8782 ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement to keep Sindh and Balochistan. Need more discussion for Gilgit–Baltistan and Punjab.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep again disagree, keep all. Ytpks896 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking off duplicate vote. Your earlier vote will be taken as keep all. Jay (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix this Thryduulf's way. These are perfectly plausible ways to search these three terms, and we don't appear to have info about the fourth. Regards, SONIC678 03:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed per Thryduulf's thoughtful and sensible analysis. SpinningSpark 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The articles Punjab, Pakistan and Balochistan, Pakistan shouldn't have sections on the etymology of the words. They should have at most a sentence in the lede, with pointers to the etymology sections of Punjab and Balochistan. People should feel free to create the redirect Etymology of Sindh, but please don't keep Etymology of Sindh, Pakistan. The issue with it (which is also the case for two of the other redirects being discussed) is that it's an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} of an {{R from subtopic}}. We do sometimes create redirects that are "twice removed" from their targets, but that's done tactically in order to resolve ambiguities or enable navigational paths to otherwise inaccessible targets. However, here we have a generic combination of redirect types, and if we're going to have redirects of that sort, we'd need to also have Etymology of Sindh (region) (to match Sindh (region)), Etymology of Sindh Province (to match Sindh Province), and so on for all the other redirects to Sindh. Going down that path entails squaring the number of existing redirects (so that instead of about 50, that article should have 2,500 redirects pointing to it); that's clearly not feasible. On the other hand, it's not helpful to abstain from creating the other redirects but keep just those ones here: redirects should be consistent as we don't want to provide for a search strategy that works in one case, but fails to work in a thousand more. – Uanfala (talk) 03:48, 26 December 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.

Budjerah (given name)[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. Consensus is that (given name) disambiguator not suitable for redirect to a standalone bio. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incorrect because these redirects target a person, not a SIA. "(given name)" as a disambiguator is used for anthroponymy indexes of given names. There is no such indexes for these names because these names are not notable. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 29#Selston (surname) for a similar precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read {{R from given name}} in order to understand why redirects such as these exist. They redirect to the person because there's only one notable person with the name, thus preventing the creation of a single-entry given name page (the likes of which are shown here). "Beyoncé" redirected to "Beyoncé Knowles" ~long before~ the page was moved to the former name; there's a long-standing precedence for this, especially when viewed alongside {{R from surname}} redirects. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your example, Beyoncé would be a cromulent {{R from given name}} to Beyoncé Knowles if the article were titled that. However, Beyoncé (given name) to Beyoncé Knowles (the type of redirect being discussed) is not valid because the target is a biography, not a given name index. And we can see that Beyoncé (given name) does not exist to round out the example—and if it were to be created as a single-entry name index, it should be deleted per WP:NNAME. To further drive the point home, {{R from given name}} categorizes redirects into Category:Redirects from given names. The three redirects nominated here, all recent creations from yourself, are the only examples in that category with the "(given name)" disambiguator showing that this is not a common practice, or even one that existed at all, until you made these redirects a few months back. -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seem pointless to me. Cannot see what the (given name) is helping to clarify at all. Aoziwe (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the target articles are about people, not names. The creation of the redirects appears to stem from a confusion between redirects from given names (e.g. "Jane" -> "Jane Doe") and redirects about given names (e.g. "Jane (given name)" -> "Jane") – Uanfala (talk) 03:59, 26 December 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.

Memes about Greta Thunberg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#Memes about Greta Thunberg

Wikipedia:NOU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#Wikipedia:NOU

Nef (ship)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#Nef (ship)

Lupae[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 Mixed.

Lupa does not disambiguate the term "Lupae". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to article. The page was originally on the meaning "she-wolves" and its euphemistic Roman use for the lowest class of prostitute. There are reliable sources on this subject, including a book published by a university press. The page was converted to a redirect some time ago without discussion as far as I can tell, but it still has incoming links intended for the original article. SpinningSpark 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate back per Spinningspark. 223.207.113.226 (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert Lupae to disambiguation page per Spinningspark. Retarget Lupae (disambiguation) to Lupae.-- Aervanath (talk) 08:52, 31 December 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.

Deuce deuce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Deuce deuce

4.5[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#4.5

Zana massacre[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 Zana massacre and no consensus for Debre Kerbe massacre. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Zana woreda is mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Jay: The word 'woreda' means a location (like a town, county or district). A spammer had created 106 [alleged] massacre event articles, and for each one he added even more redirects for different spellings and nearby location names. The massacre-event articles (all 106 of them) are being gone through and mostly being turned into redirects (such as was done to the target Debrekerbe massacre) to their relevant sentence/paragraph in Timeline of the Tigray War. That is why 'Zana massacre' redirects to a sentence mentioning 'Zana' (a location). But no article links to 'Zana massacre' and the spammer has been perma-blocked, so the likelihood of anyone ever using the term 'Zana massacre' (which he coined) is nil. Platonk (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Debre Kerbe. If I heard "Debrekerbe massacre" I wouldn't know whether this unfamiliar foreign name was one word or two. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The local languages, translated to English, result in numerous spelling variations. We cannot make redirects for every one of them. In this case, the target (Debrekerbe massacre) is just a remnant anyway, it is already redirected to a paragraph in an article. We are cleaning up and removing 106 wrongly-created "massacre" articles made by a spammer (one by one, slowly). These are not needed. Platonk (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain, in detail, why someone looking for "Debrekerbe" is unlikely to look for "Debre Kerbe". This is not a spelling variation, after all. It's also not a familiar English name that will never plausibly be split, unlike, say, Can Berra versus Canberra. The problems with 105 other redirects are utterly irrelevant to whether this particular one is useful, and you give no evidence for your "not needed" claim. And finally, there's nothing wrong with having redirects from good, plausible names. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't an issue of finding debrekerbe or debre kerbe, it's a link to an alleged massacre. There currently is no article written for the 'town' called debrekerbe so searching for it within Wikipedia (any spelling) gets you nothing (except the zone it is in). The terminology ("debrekerbe massacre") was invented by a spamming sockpuppet specifically for use in Wikipedia and to alarm people and to link to his own works outside of Wikipedia (see WP:REFSPAM). He has since been blocked. The media doesn't use the terminology 'massacre'. Try googling for "debrekerbe massacre" (any spelling) and you won't find anything except Wikipedia and Wikipedia copycats. So no, IP-user 122.150.71.249, there would be no need for you to type it into the Wikipedia search bar because you won't be hearing or seeing that terminology... unless you're a personal associate of that particular sockpuppet. If you would like to read the background information on the 'sock', go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jnyssen/Archive. Platonk (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom.-- Aervanath (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zana massacre and keep Debre Kerbe massacre as a spelling variation. --Heanor (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (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.

Wolf (upcoming film)[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 Wolf (upcoming film) to Wolf (disambiguation) and Delete Wolf (upcoming 2021 film). -- Aervanath (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stale and ambiguous. Nardog (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first one for now (it's still getting A LOT of pageviews, like over 900 last month), and wait for 2022 (possibly beyond) to see if these view are going down. Weak delete the second one, which isn't used as much as it was May 28-29 this year, as it will eventually come to an end and render that one obsolete. Regards, SONIC678 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first one to Wolf (disambiguation) per the views incoming, and delete the second one. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget the first one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the IP, retarget. Nardog (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the first one as it's still getting views. Weak delete the second one as ambiguous and not particularly useful (but I would also be fine with retargeting the second one). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. We shouldn't create time dependent page titles in mainspace. All "upcoming films" eventually cease to be upcoming, either because they get released or production is abandoned. They will therefore always end up as useless nonsense. We are an encyclopaedia documenting notable topics, not a review of recent film news. SpinningSpark 14:43, 23 December 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_December_19&oldid=1091891212"