Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2021.

List of games featuring the Galaxian flagship[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 12:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally created as a list in 2006, and subsequently merged with the main Galaxian article. The list was deleted from the article by Dgpop in October 2018, without formal discussion but without objection. The list was unsourced, and would probably fail WP:OR if it were to be recreated. As the redirect title no longer refers to a list, and is an unlikely search term to anyone looking only for the Galaxian article, I would recommend that the redirect be Deleted. Tevildo (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 16 July 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.

WBFS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#WBFS

FreeTalk 45[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 23:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, appears to be an unrelated social media site based on an internet search, if potentially appealing to the same target audience as OANN. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. FreeTalk 45 is a product of OANN [1] but without a mention this isn't a useful redirect. I can find absolutely no independent coverage of it, other than on lists of apps, so it doesn't look to be notable enough for a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 17 July 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.

Solidarité[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what might have been an upcoming project title, but it is not clear what happened to it, not mentioned anywhere in target article BOVINEBOY2008 18:20, 16 July 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.

Offcut[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Offcut

Atlanta <Sport> Team[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 no consensus on the remaining item. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one team that each of these could refer to. Retarget Football and Basketball to Sports in Atlanta, which lists such teams. However, Atlanta Baseball Team is used as a euphemism for the MLB team that plays there, by people like me who prefer not to say its name, and also by several news outlets, extending the convention of the Washington Football Team and Cleveland Baseball Team. Given that the only other baseball team listed at Sports in Atlanta is the Gwinnett Stripers, an affiliate of the other team, and also keeping in mind WP:DIFFCAPS, on balance I'd say keep Baseball, optionally with hatnote to Sports in Atlanta. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is enough ambiguity in the redirect terms that the target could possibly not be the intended target for a reader. 05:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Retarget all. Euphemisms seem to be a very niche use and will not be impacted by retargetting to the general page without misleading those who don't know about whatever the local issue is (and most people using redirects like this are going to be unfamiliar with local sports politics). Retargetting is preferable to deletion for exactly the same reason disambiguation pages exist - they better serve the reader than search results. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Sports in Atlanta (unless, of course, Atlanta Braves changes its name). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Basketball to Sports in Atlanta. The others don't really have a strong case for generalizing since there are no notable colleges that are called Atlanta. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming that everyone using this search term knows that and that colleges with Atlanta in the name are the only possible teams these could refer to. Both assumptions are wrong - I didn't know that about colleges and I'd want to see current and former teams that played these sports that were based in and/or represented Atlanta even if they don't have Atlanta in the name. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Sports in Atlanta to be consistent with the analogous redirects to Sports in Baltimore, per the consensus from the analogous RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Baseball - there's been a trend for several years of media (and especially sports commentators) referring to major league sports teams as "<city> <sport> team" rather than their potentially offensive actual names (c.f. Cleveland Baseball Team, Washington Football Team, Edmonton Football Team). The Braves are one such team. Retarget the others for the reasons already stated. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I often find multiple relists unproductive unless new questions have emerged since the previous one. Here, I find consensus to retarget two of these redirects, but no consensus yet on the third. Effectively, I am only relisting that one, but I think it will be neater to relist first and then close the other two. Consider this a closing statement for those Atlanta Football Team and Atlanta Basketball Team.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 16 July 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.

Domina Vacanze[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 30#Domina Vacanze

Flag of Svalbard[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 Svalbard. MBisanz talk 00:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Svalbard reads "Svalbard does not currently use a distinct flag" in an image caption, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Svalbard, which mentions the lack of flag (as you note) and also shows a past proposed flag. On the other hand, that caption is unsourced. Not sure what my !vote would be if the caption were to be removed—I could see a case for still targeting to Svalbard even without mention, given that the lack of mention is itself a partial answer. But we can cross that bridge if we come to it, and, either way, the current target is unhelpful. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget either to Svalbard or to Svalbard and Jan Mayen#Application which has prose stating "Neither Svalbard nor Jan Mayen have their own flag or coat of arms, and the flag of Norway is used for both of them, both alone and as a group." that is sourced to the CIA World Fact Book. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone were to formulate a short section on the use of the Norwegian flag on Svalbard and Jan Mayen in the Flag of Norway article, then I would vote to keep this redirect. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel like the implication with this redirect is clear and would convey that the flag of Svalbard is just the Norwegian flag to anyone searching or linking this. Perhaps it would be more clear, however, if the Flag of Norway article referenced this explicitly. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Retarget to Svalbard where Svalbard not using a flag is mentioned, rather than the current target, where it is not. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Svalbard and Jan Mayen#Application per Thryduulf, where the lack of a flag is explicitly mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 16 July 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.

Hothouse earth[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 Greenhouse and icehouse Earth. ✗plicit 12:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps nowadays should point to Tipping points in the climate system as seems to be mentioned in that article? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well they should both go to the same article but where I am not sure - has been notified to climate change project so hoping for expert comment. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir to Greenhouse and icehouse Earth as EurekaLott advised above. Regardless of capitalization, its my understanding the phrase describes an earth that lacks large amounts of year-round surface ice. In the abstract, climate tipping points could just as easily create a snowball earth (frozen oceans) as a hothouse earth, and anything in between. And for that matter, there is an old but still valid merge discussion at Talk:Greenhouse and icehouse Earth, where folks seem to lean toward merging that article into Tipping points in the climate system but since it hasn't happened yet, lets have both of capitlizations point to Greenhouse and icehouse Earth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK not sure procedure but doing it now as you suggest - I guess I cannot close this as I am not an admin Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted your edit. Please do not make changes to redirects while they are under discussion as it creates confusion and mess. There is no reason to close this discussion early. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK sorry I misunderstood the procedure - I will leave this to others from now on Chidgk1 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 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.

Nawasib[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 23#Nawasib

Prevalence of male genital mutilation[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be retargeted to Prevalence of circumcision, by far the most common form, with a hatnote. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What needs to be established is whether circumcision is considered genital mutilation. As per Circumcision it is not, and although circumcision is a sub-section in Genital modification and mutilation, I believe it is because of the "modification" part, and not "mutilation". Delete if there is no other suitable target, since current target is not about prevalence. Jay (Talk) 08:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Circumcision#Elective: The Danish College of General Practitioners states that circumcision should "only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation."[29] ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a medical POV from the article. The religious and cultural POV will be different. What is the general POV about circumcision regarding mutilation? Jay (Talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear that some people regard male circumcision as a subset of male genital mutilation (at least in some circumstances) and others do not. Unlike with females where there is a clear concensus that circumcision is a subset of genital mutilation to the extent that Female circumcision is a redirect to Female genital mutilation, there exists no such consensus for males. Accordingly I feel it would be a violation of NPOV to redirect the larger term to a subset here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I set the redirect to this target on the basis that Male genital mutilation points to this target. I agree with the neutrality concerns expressed by others above. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 17 July 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 Legend of Zelda: Breath of Evil[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 02:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probable fake title for the sequel based on a supposed "leak". Read here. Propose deletion. enjoyer -- talk 02:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the screenshot from the deleted tweet mentioned in the ScreenRant article just looks like a speculation/assertion from 4chan. If true, however, it's WP:TOOEARLY. SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the “leak” that mentioned this title claimed that there was going a trailer for the game in a Nintendo Direct last October which didn’t occur and also contained significant misinformation such Crash Bandicoot being the seventh DLC fighter for Smash Ultimate when in fact it was Sephiroth who was only announced in December. This is clearly fake.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:20, 17 July 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.

Notepad (software)[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 Windows Notepad (noting that Microsoft Notepad was moved there as a result of a move discussion). The arguments in support of retargeting did a better job demonstrating that the primary topic for this term is the Windows application, as opposed to it being a generic or ambiguous term. ✗plicit 02:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clear primary topic of "Notepad", referring to software, is Microsoft Notepad. Propose retargeting. Notepad+ and Notepad++ are already, well, named differently. Text editors are only referred to as "notepad" because of Microsoft Notepad, following that, Microsoft Notepad is clearly primary. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment some old discussion on whether text editors are called "notepad" or not: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Notepad software. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a google search for "Notepad" software for me shows no primary topic between Notepad++ and Microsoft Notepad with other programs such as Finale notepad, XML notepad and Programmer's Notepad in there too. Several of the links referring to the first two are offering alternatives to the named program, at least one of them talks of "alternative notepad software". Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom with a {{redirect}} hatnote to the disambiguation page. I think the Microsoft product is the primary topic for the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence that there is a primary topic? All my searches have indicated the exact opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Other contenders such as Notepad++ are not actually called "Notepad". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:PDAB, the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foos that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator. Use as a generic term for a text editor is enough to fail this higher bar. Certes (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. MS Notepad is the primary topic for Notepad software, by a very large margin. Even the other contenders, such as Notepad+, are named after MS Notepad (it's called Notepad+ because it has more features than Notepad). Google searches are not a reliable indicator of primary topic or anything else, among other reasons, because Google search results are customized. See related in WP:HITS and WP:GHITS. But go search Google books or Google scholar for notepad software and there are far more results about the original MS software than any of its successors. Arguing there is no primary topic between Notepad, Notepad+, and Notepad++ is like arguing there is no primary topic between Star Wars, Star Wars 2, and Star Wars 3. Levivich 15:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom and the two retarget votes above, for the reasons mentioned. Hatnote to the DAB page. Jay (Talk) 06:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Microsoft Notepad / Windows Notepad is commonly called "Notepad". Notepad++ is not referred to as "Notepad" alone. The generic term is usually "text editor" rather than "notepad". Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. "Notepad" is a specific brand name of a specific text editor (i.e. Windows Notepad), in the same way that Kleenex is a specific brand name of a specific facial tissue. All of the other titles listed on the disambiguation page are partial title matches. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:23, 22 July 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_July_16&oldid=1036206404"