Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2021.

British politician sex[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 We Didn't Start the Fire#1963. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The Profumo affair was not the only British political sex scandal (though perhaps the most famous). Possible alternative to deletion is retargeting to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, but even so, I don't think it's a plausible search term. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to We Didn't Start the Fire#1963 which explains the context of the phrase and tag as {{R from lyric}}. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and tag per Tavix. That song is by far the most likely reason why someone will be searching this particular phrase and so we should take them to where it is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the target with the most relevant information about the subject. Note that we currently have no quotations from "We Didn't Start the Fire" as redirects to the song's article. A similar situation (Belgians in the Congo) was discussed last year, but no consensus was reached. - Eureka Lott 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between the lyrics is that "Belgians in the Congo" is unambiguous - it doesn't need any article to explain why you have arrived at the target article (well, actually it sort of does because you should arrive at the higher level article as I comprehensively explained in that discussion), whereas linking directly to Profumo affair doesn't explain why that scandal is singled out (hence this nomination - Sdrqaz's userpage suggests they are of a demographic I would not expect to be familiar with this song). That we don't have other lyric redirects to the song article is not really relevant, indeed chances are that we should have some ("England's got a new queen", "Brooklyn's got a winning team", "Liston beats Patterson" and "Terror on the airline" strike me as candidates). Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that two of the phrases you noted above are already redirects, and neither points to the song. Any confusion about the source of the quote can be resolved by tagging the page as a {{R from lyric}}. - Eureka Lott 18:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, and am considering whether to nominate them for retargetting as my initial impression is that the song will be a better target than their current one. I haven't nominated them yet as I haven't done all the research I need to do first (and haven't got time right now). {{R from lyric}} helps editors maintaining the redirect, but doesn't indentify which song and doesn't provide the unfamiliar reader with any of the context the song article does. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike most songs, "We Didn't Start the Fire" isn't about any one subject—it's a recitation of historical figures and events, and I expect that users searching for its lyrics don't need to be shown the article about the song. People searching for Trouble in the Suez are very probably looking for information about the Suez Crisis, not the song. - Eureka Lott 00:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no single right answer about where phrases from the lyrics of this song should point, and I agree that "Trouble in the Suez" is targetted at the right article currently. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf is right in that I was unaware of the lyrical background (I make zero comment on my demographic; I was aware of the chorus's words but not most of the verses), or I would have mentioned it in the nomination. The creator's two other redirects were deletable under R3, which did not inspire me to look beyond the surface: "British politician sex" seemed to me a somewhat-reasonable attempt to summarise the Profumo affair. Of course, I could have simply looked in the deletion logs to see the previous discussion, but I (uncharacteristically, hopefully) neglected to do so.
    As for the substantive issue, I don't really see it as a plausible search term. I doubt users looking for "We Didn't Start the Fire" would use those words to get there – having given the song a re-listen, those three words certainly didn't jump out to me as being prominent in any manner. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think someone searching for "British politician sex" is most likely looking for information about the song generally (although it's possible this is the lyric they remember, this is only ever going to be incidental usage) but about the event in the context of the song. Targetting the line of the song serves all three groups (those who are looking for the event in the context of the song, those looking for the event and those who stumble across the term out of context) equally well. As for whether it's a plausible search term, well that it's been created at least twice is a strong hint that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per comments above, perhaps a Dab page could include (a) link to Profumo with reference to 'start the fire', and (b) link to List of Scandals. Either that or delete it, and ensure 'Profumo' has adequate reference to 'start the fire', so the search within wp/en will work OK. Note that the Stats for this come up 'not found'. Chumpih. (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix and Thryduulf. It's generally better to point to an article that explains why a term refers to something, than to throw the user blindly there and hope it makes sense to them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. I don't think disambiguation is needed in this case: I don't think anyone actually uses the phrase "British politician sex" to refer to the Profumo affair itself, only as a song lyric which refers to it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:09, 3 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.

Ammonium blifluoride[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. As unopposed deletion. Jay (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect; we don't have blifluoride either, and even that only seems to have on search result with Google (https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/ndpsc-record-30.pdf, "Sodium blifluoride"). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:56, 28 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.

'nam[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 Nam. It's been more than a week since 'Nam was bundled and no one has objected to this. Its bundling also nullifies one of the three keep votes, leaving a pretty clear consensus (5 to 2 numerically, with neither side's arguments meriting up- or down-weighting) that the term is ambiguous and should point to a DAB page. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Should we change this redirect to Vietnam or some other page, keep its target as it is, or delete it? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added the previous RfD. Also note that 65.92.246.43 has added Vietnam and Vietnam War to the Nam dab page as per their own suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle in 'Nam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 28 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.

The Big One (earthquake)[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! 05:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous title. This can refer to any big, once-in-a-lifetime earthquake. Suggest deleting as we already have Big One as a disambiguation page. Aasim (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which other earthquake is referred to this way? In which case we can disambiguate. Also we need an explanation for 100,000+ page views this has got, and 8500 of them were on a single day. Jay (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and keep current link, as it has long been the epithet for a projected California earthquake, going back to as long as the fault lines have been studied. Group29 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence has been presented that this term is used to refer to any other earthquakes. If it is, then someone can turn it into a DAB (or can add hatnotes to the current target). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:09, 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.

KSIY (FM)[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. When a disambiguation page only has one entry, the usual course of action is to redirect to that entry. Therefore, I will be redirecting KSIY to Siskiyou County Airport. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This (would-be) station is not mentioned in the targeted list. (It was a construction permit that, despite filing for a license, apparently wasn't built as authorized.) It seems to be an unlikely-enough search term, and it probably wouldn't survive as an article either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the intention is to delete, this needs discussion on what happens at the disambig page KSIY which has only one other entry apart from this one. Post deletion, this will not survive as a redlink entry there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:28, 28 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.

Old Polbot mistakes[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 Gordon S. and Delete the rest. There was only one opinion for singling out Gordon S., and it may be relisted if there is no agreement for the retarget. Jay (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A series of errors made by a bot in 2007; bundling since they are legion. These are generally partial names that do not primarily refer to the subject, with some just general junk mixed in. Hog Farm Talk 17:54, 28 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.

Hinduism in LATVIA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Hinduism in LATVIA

Best presidents[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 00:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of redirects like this were deleted following this RfD last year, where there was a consensus that redirects containing "ranking" should be kept and other non-U.S.-specific redirects to this U.S.-specific target should be deleted. This one seems to have been missed, but should probably be deleted for the same reasons. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 28 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.

Nazrul research[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Nazrul research

Great Chimpanzee War[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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, zero hits on GScholar, no relevant results in an internet search, delete as a neologism unless evidence of use by RS can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 28 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.

List of Spaceship flights[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 00:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or at least retarget to Lists of rocket launches). The redirect makes no sense. It's not a misspelling, it's not any other plausible error. Spaceship is a far more general concept, SpaceX Starship was never called "Spaceship". The current redirect is like redirecting List of rocket launches to List of Ariane launches. mfb (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is from a page move mistake and was moved from this page the same day it was moved to it by the same user, so I think it can be safely deleted. Note that the more general List of spaceship flights doesn't exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 14:39, 28 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.

Enthusiast[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Enthusiast

Schools inspector[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Schools inspector

Net carbs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Net carbs

Conservative think tank(s)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Conservative think tank(s)

Pionic atom[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 Exotic atom#Hadronic atoms. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pionic hydrogen is also a pionic atom; suggest retargeting to Exotic atom#Hadronic atoms. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, except that there is no mention of pionium in that particular article section (pionium is discussed in the next section). It should link to a disambiguation page or to a more generic "exotic atom" instead. I have gone ahead and made the change. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nicole Sharp The section does describe pionic atoms though, which is exactly the title of the redirect (not pionium). ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     02:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pionic hydrogen should be discussed in the hydrogen article, as exotic forms of hydrogen, along with other such forms, like muonic hydrogen, antihydrogen, antiprotonic hydrogen, etc. The article is missing information -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After nomination here, Nicole Sharp changed the redirect target from pionium into exotic atom [5]. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to Exotic atom#Hadronic atoms per nom. Jay (talk) 05:11, 4 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.

Helionium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Helionium

Pionic deuterium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Pionic deuterium

BMW V Series[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. BMW V-Series will need to be nominated separately. ✗plicit 11:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here about a "V Series" of cars or aircraft engines (the BMW V being an aircraft engine). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Originally created as an article about a speculated new model (eg see [6], [7] and [8]). No articles on wikipedia discus this model (nor should they) so there is no benefit keeping this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nobody is searching with this term. Chumpih. (talk) 03:02, 30 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.

PmBata[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. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect about a non-notable YouTuber that redirects to a page that doesn't really cover their full work. See FlyingKitty and Technoblade for another example. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I created the redirect). ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Qwer. No information on Enwiki about this YouTuber whatsoever, better to delete and let the search engine do its thing. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results. Contra CycloneYoris, there are two pieces of information about PmBata that can currently be learned on Wikipedia: that they are signed to 300 Entertainment and that they released a song with Dream (YouTuber). Due to the fact that neither location has both nuggets of knowledge, search results are better. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_28&oldid=1064864886"