Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 17, 2021.

Sarah movie[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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo; if anything, retarget to Sarah (film). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The creator had created redirect Sahara film pointing to the same target, exactly the same minute that he created Sarah movie, so in all probability he wanted to create Sahara movie instead. Jay (Talk) 10:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Sarah (film) as plausible synonym --Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and would !vote the same for Sahara film (which I've retargeted to Sahara (disambiguation)#Film and television for consistency with Sahara (film)). Non-parenthetically-disambiguated titles add a significant maintenance cost, allowing for one extra redirect for every parenthetically-disambiguated title. They also can be misleading, as they may suggest the existence of an article about a general topic (although admittedly I'm not sure what a "Sarah movie" would be). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So after deletion, what would the reader expect when they search for "Sarah movie"? I checked for the 10,000 search results and there was no Sarah (film) in the results (probably because the Sarah (film) page does not have the word "movie" in it). Jay (Talk) 05:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 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.
  • So my question is still pending. What should readers expect when they search "Sarah movie"? They will get 10,000 results but will not get the movie with the name Sarah. Jay (Talk) 04:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay I just created Sarah (movie), which should improve search results. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz[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 send to AFD. There is a slight consensus to delete, but it is confused with the content of the former article. The former article and its content is best addressed at AFD. MBisanz talk 20:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Redirect name is not mentioned anywhere in the target article, though it had been before. Not likely to be searched as he has no notability besides initially surviving the collision. 108.41.60.144 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD. There was brief discussion about merging, but with just 2 comments in addition to the proposer (one support and one against) that's hardly a strong consensus. There also does not appear to be a clear consensus about whether to include or exclude a mention from the target based on the edit summaries, so a formal discussion about the article content seems more appopriate than one about the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 27 June 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, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD per Thryduulf. I also added mention at the target before realizing it was reverted once by WilliamJE who said there is a consensus not to mention names (and which I would like to know more about). Jay (Talk) 12:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Jay:. An explanation of the consensus can be found here[1]. Note I took Baltz's name out of the article again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore to version before the redirect. No AfD required. We do not know why the redirect happened, except for a statement by the redirect proposer that said "I respectfully suggest that this article be merged into 1960 New York air disaster.". Subject is notable as per the comments below. Jay (Talk) 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WilliamJE has left a message on my talk page, presumably trying to get me to change my recommendation here. However it does not, regardless of what the consensus is about mentions on other articles, the place to discuss whether articles should be kept or deleted is AfD not RfD. My recommendation stands. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Delete An AfD would be a complete waste of time, since it's obvious that this person's only notability is due to being on this plane. So the only possible conclusions to that AfD would be to delete or redirect to the article on the crash. Since there is consensus not to name him in the article, it becomes a classic case of a topic not mentioned in the article, leading to a natural delete conclusion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether you (or any editor) thinks it's "obvious" or not. Article content that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion must not, by policy, be deleted without a consensus to do so at an appropriate venue. RfD is not and cannot be an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD it. RfD is for deleting redirects, but we would be implicitly deleting an actual article, for which AfD should be used. RfD and AfD are very different processes, so we shouldn't be using RfD for what is an article deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect and expand target - coverage in a major publication 40+ years after the incident ([2]) and the existence of a memorial plaque ([3]) demonstrate notability, and notability is not temporary, but this is a WP:BIO1E and shouldn't be a separate article. The consensus purported to have been established at Aeroflot Flight 141 does not apply to this situation. The former article was effectively "slow"-PRODded: one editor proposed deletion in 2006 with no objections, but they didn't tag the article so it wasn't actually deleted. It was four years later that two other editors decided to merge it instead, and the resulting situation has been stable for over a decade and does not need to go through a separate deletion discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:59, 12 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 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector's suggestion is probably best. Baltz is already discussed, albeit not by name, at the Initial survivor section. Is there any reason we can't just add the name right now and be done with it? --BDD (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Ivanvector get it wrong? He says it was proposed for deletion in 2006 with no objections, but it was not deleted because the article was not tagged. The reality being, almost everyone objected to the deletion, and the result was to keep. Four years later, Wi2g (now Miniapolis) suggested the merge (no reason shown). If the subject is notable, why should it continue to be a redirect? Jay (Talk) 04:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ivanvector's solution to include Baltz's name and notability in the article. I don't see how this would run afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We should not have a list of victims/survivors, but Baltz's notability is intertwined within the crash as (initially) a sole survivor. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added the name. There may be a local consensus not to usually name such people, but this is textbook WP:IAR. Frankly, I'm fine with a delete too, especially if we really "can't" mention his name, but the status quo does a disservice to readers, and we need to put their interests first. --BDD (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has been removed once again. Consensus is clear, per over a half a dozen discussions and two ANIs, that we don't name the dead, survivors, those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable and the only exception is the cockpit crew....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're duplicating discussion from my talk page at this point. Suffice to say, I want a redirect that works for readers or none at all. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With some apprehension still, I'm switching to delete as first choice. If project consensus is firmly against mentioning such people, this redirect is constantly going to be swimming upstream, and we're likely to see it here again. Might as well cut bait. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 3 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.

Papal mandate[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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papal rescripts are never called "papal mandates" in the article. Veverve (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure. The Catholic Church likes to define things very rigidly, but I don't see any formal definition for "papal mandate" anywhere. From what I can interpret from Googling, a papal mandate is either a directive issued by the Pope, or the Pope's entire authority. In the first sense, a papal rescript is a type of papal mandate, but I think ecclesiastical letter better covers the broader topic; neither mentions "papal mandate" though. The second sense is I think best covered by papal supremacy, but there are other targets that could suffice like papal infallibility or papal primacy. Search results bring up specific examples of individual papal mandates throughout history in articles on saints and other historical figures, so I wouldn't say that search results are better here. I've notified WikiProject Catholicism of this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector's helpful research suggests that disambiguating this might be prudent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wary of disambiguating without input from someone with better knowledge of the highly ritualized administration of the Catholic Church, but I still don't have any better suggestions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into a Disambiguation page. As "papal mandate" is an outsiders term, with no fixed meaning, but a likely search term, and given the various options that Ivanvector's squirrel mentions above, disambiguation seems an ideal solution. I should note that the Mandate article does define "papal mandate" as the same as Papal rescripts; although actual usage as shown by Google, is broader. See, e.g. this usage in The Catholic Register. The Latin mandatum pontifice appears to be seldom used. Papal bull is another form of papal mandate. From the hand of the pope. --Bejnar (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we don't have an article saying what it is. Ecclesiastical letter#Letters of the popes in modern times per Ivan could have been a target (although it says modern times whereas papal mandates were there even a thousand years back), but I would not rely on a section that does not cite any sources and has been tagged so since 2017. Jay (Talk) 04:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (or is this a set index?) per Ivanvector. I can see this title being a helpful index page like "Papal mandate is an informal term that may refer to the following forms of communication from the Roman Catholic Church:". Deryck C. 11:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should be very careful about inventing terms. Our colleagues at Wiktionary reject pages for "non-idiomatic phrases", phrases like this with no meaning beyond the meaning of their individual parts. A papal mandate is simply a mandate which is papal. Attempting to list every such topic seems like original research. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to try to get firmer consensus between deletion and disambiguaton.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm siding with those who say this is a general expression rather than a particular one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:56, 18 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.

Always the one[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Always the one

Superior Prut and Lower Danube[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 24#Superior Prut and Lower Danube

ফেডোরা (অপারেটিং সিস্টেম)[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 23:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between the Bengal language and these topics. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone,
I am new in Wikipedia Editing and Mainly volunteers in the Bengali Wikipedia. I was doing it because I was not inform about Wikidata and the process; I created those redirection pages because I thought that's the way to link between the Wikipedia pages. I am really sorry for about my mistake. You can delete the redirection page.
I am also talk the administration group of Bengali Wikipedia. I am really sorry for this mistake. I will not do it in future. I am also sorry for my bad English.
Riyadul (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Riyadul (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of these articles have any relation to the Bengali language. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone, and WP:G7. These are essentially the old (very old, now) way to create interlanguage links. Per their message above (and contribs on Wikidata) the creator has since learned the current way to create those links, so the redirects serve no purpose to English readers. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:49, 24 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.

Palau National Museum[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 speedy keep. Withdrawing own nomination after new information (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only museum in Koror, Palau; may be better off targeting List of museums in Palau Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belau is the Palauan word for Palau. But I suppose redirecting it to the page about Palau museums would work as well.Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not only is this a translation of the official name, it is the primary topic for the search term and, as far as I've been able to tell, the only museum in Palau to be called a or the "national museum". I've added a link to the list article from the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thryduulf, I'm willing to withdraw this based on the reasons you provided. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:28, 18 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.

Nigger moment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 24#Nigger moment

Black feet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Black feet

Azerbadzjan[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 speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 16:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only 115 pageviews over a decade and a half, thus likely an implausible typo. dudhhrContribs 08:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless and used, even if only sometimes. Google results show this is both a plausible misspelling and unambiguous. Redirects are WP:CHEAP so there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a common misspelling I've seen used by people in real life before so should be plausible on-wiki. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:47, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_17&oldid=1038485016"