Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2021.

Bishop eustace[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 30#Bishop eustace

Chef programming language[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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D10. No mention at target. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from Esoteric programming language with these consecutive edits of Nov 2019 by @Moonythedwarf:. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I restored the Chef section, per the 2012 AfD consensus. As a section verified with sourcing to reliable sources and with a consensus to selectively merge Chef to the article, this should not have been deleted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider my nomination withdrawn. Thanks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 12:08, 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.

Fhqwhgads[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 Strong Bad Sings (and Other Type Hits). signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at targets, but the first page has history and the term is briefly mentioned at Strong Bad#Reception, so probably better to retarget there. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Strong Bad Sings (and Other Type Hits). The song in which the name appears, "Everybody to the Limit", already redirects there, and I'm sure it'll be possible to find a reference for the song's (unofficial?) subtitle "Come on Fhqwhgads" if we need to add that information. Tevildo (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Fhqwhgads per Tevildo, delete the second as an unlikely variant / misspelling (if we attempted to get every possible misspelling of fhqwhgads, it's gonna take awhile). SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 26 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.

Nigel Platts-Martin[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 Square (restaurant). signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created and edited Draft:Nigel Platts-Martin, which has been recently rejected via AfC process. This man has has co-owned (or used to co-own) other Michelin-starred restaurants, like The Square (restaurant), Chez Bruce, and The Ledbury. Well, it's been tagged with "with possibilities" template, but I'm unsure whether it should be redirected with the draft, which would be deleted if abandoned for six months. If he's more known for other restaurants besides Harveys, but if the draft counterpart isn't an appropriate target, then why not re-target to The Square (restaurant), which he had co-owned for years until the restaurant was sold in 2016? George Ho (talk) 22:01, 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.

Moroccanoil[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 04:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion because the two articles aren't directly related.Nicolapps (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps MoroccanOil which is a brand for a world famous beauty product can be developed into a page. MoroccanOil company was mentioned in the Besiyata Dishmaya in the "Cultural influence" section, that's why I had the redirect anyhow. If this redirect is deleted, and i support that, I will work on an i\article about the MoroccanOil product itself. werldwayd (talk) 19:53, 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.

Untitled Miranda July Project[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 04:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajillionaire was already released last year, so why would it still be "upcoming" or "untitled?" Moreover, this was part of a discussion that was closed to avert a train accident, and its pageviews have been going WAY down as of last year, so maybe delete unless a justification can be provided (and at least until there's a new Miranda July project announced). Regards, SONIC678 16:33, 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.

Unnamed Titanosaur[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 09:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A follow up from June 6 of our regular cleanup of 'unnamed' redirects to things that now have names. The group of Titanosaur redirects had an additional "delete" !vote so I will nominate separately. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as creator of one of the redirects, per my previous delete vote. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly as stats show that, other than a blip around the time of the previous nomination, people had stopped using these redirects. That end is recent enough though that the extra week might while it's listed here might help 1-2 people. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this fossil was known as the unnamed titanosaur (or unnamed Patagonian titanosaur) for several years between its discovery and its formal naming. Someone encountering literature written during that time might come here looking for more information under that title. As far as I can tell there aren't presently any other unnamed titanosaurs. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "unnamed titanosaur" is useful in that regard. Every titanosaur listed in the literature as Titanosauria indeterminate or Titanosauria incertae sedis by definition count as unnamed titanosaurs. Plus, note that this particular link redirects to Titanosauria and not Patagotitan. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Delete "unnamed titanosaur", but keep the other two referring to Patagonia specifically. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:37, 5 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 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs to be discussed further...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #1 and Keep #3 per Ivan. Unclear on #2. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) had moved #2 to #3 with comment "Many unnamed titanosaurs in 2014", which is confusing because #2 already was unambiguous having the word Patagonian in it. If what he really meant was "Many unnamed Patagonian titanosaurs as of 2014", then I would like to get examples of the unnamed ones. The article on Patagonia mentions Argentinosaurus, another Patagonian titanosaur. Was it also referred to as "Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur" between its discovery in 1987 and naming in 1993? Jay (Talk) 05:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Certainly Patagotitan was far from the only unnamed Patagonian titanosaur specimen as of 2014. Here, the press refers to another unnamed Patagonian titanosaur from Neuquen, discovered in 2012 (Patagotitan is from Chubut). Dreadnoughtus would also qualify, since it was named in 2014. Indeed, any titanosaur specimen from Patagonia that has not been assigned to a particular species can be considered as an "unnamed Patagonian titanosaur". "Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur" is an epithet of convenience (it only has 263 hits on Google) and is, I believe, not a terribly useful one at that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More and more dinosaurs tumbling out. Delete all three. Jay (Talk) 05:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. These three names feel like unlikely search terms. Those who are seeking info on them will likely be searching for them under their now-official names. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is a clear case; even the more specific #3 is incorrect, because Dreadnoughtus is another Patagonian titanosaur named in 2014. These redirects to Patagotitan do imply that Patagotitan is the only Patagonian titanosaur named/announced in 2014, which is simply a flaw that has to be corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If someone were to search "Patagonian titanosaur", Patagotitan will be the first to come up because it's (by accident) a portmanteau   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 28 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.

🥺[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 redirect to Wikt:🥺. MBisanz talk 20:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the actual usage of this emoji, while the name is "pleading face", I don't think it makes sense to redirect to the legal concept. Not sure where the best target is, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, someone using this emoji as a search term is not doing so to look up a legal term.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yeah, the legal sense of pleading is the wrong one here but it seems to be the only one we have an article about - (other articles with the word in the title are subtopics and a poem so a disambiguation page would be a stretch. Begging (disambiguation) is not perfect as a target but it would be better than the current target and is the best existing target I've found so far. Another option would be to create a page at this title referring that acts as an index page of sorts, linking to Begging (disambiguation), Compassion, Sympathy, wikt:pleading and anything else relevant. I don't think we could call it a disambiguation page without it being deleted for not linking to articles with the emoji in the title, and it wouldn't quite be a set index or broad concept article (which are functionally disambiguation pages with a different name to work around the overly strict dab page formatting conventions). Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need to start a trend of having a redirect for every emoji (are we already there?). The current target is obviously completely wrong, and the analysis above shows there is no single target that's uniquely suitable. Instead of worrying about it, kill it. Add - this is supported by WP:REMOJI, which states that emoji redirects are usually kept where the emoji "has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia". As there is no such target, this should be deleted. Basically, as I said initially, emoji redirects are proper where there is a sensible target, but we don't have to twist our logic or create a DAB just so every emoji has a redirect. ALSO REMOJI is merely a statement of common outcomes at RfD and is certainly not a WP-wide consensus. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus at RfD for the last several years has consistently been that individual emojis are all plausible and indeed likely search terms and so should be blue links, so no only is there no trend to start if emojis weren't already almost all redirects (or articles) then we should be creating them. That no current single target currently exists is also not relevant - creating disambiguation pages is a very common outcome of RfD discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better that you don't edit your comments after others have replied to them, but I was and am not "talking down to you", I am pointing out where and why I disagree with your opinion. Also, yes I am suggesting creating a page for this emoji because that is what will best serve the readers (which is what we should care about above all else) - this is a plausible and likely search term but there is no current page that is a good target and the search results are not at all helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoticon. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the same reason we deleted 🔞 and the like. Aasim (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never allow the deletion of emoji characters, and I also think 🔞 should be unsalted and restored to a plausible search term. Look at Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, deletion is very clearly the worst of all the possible options here by a very long margin - even keeping it pointing at the present mostly incorrect target is preferable. I still think some sort of disambig/set index is the best. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoji, the redirect was searched over 1,200 times in the last 12 months. I'd recommend doing this for all standard emojis (the problem is who has the time for that?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:🥺. If an emoticon is not a notable topic in its own right, the most information that we can give a user searching for an emoticon is a dictionary entry explaining its use. There isn't much there now, but there's something, and it's where any relevant information would show up.signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Rosguill, although I think targeting Emoji per Dunkleosteus would also be fine. The decision to delete 🔞 was an aberration and should be reversed, also with one of these two outcomes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:19, 10 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.

Kulyat[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 Kulliyat. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, although the redirect says this is a former name. As is, not helpful. Another usage in Urdu poetry is mentioned in Urdu poetry MB 02:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Kulliyat which covers the same subject this did prior to redirection. It's entirely unclear to me why user:Pare Mo retargetted it away from there in 2018. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the former name seems to be Culiat 12. The vine, which then barrio was named after, is called Kulyat (Gnetum indicum) --Lenticel (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Kulliyat with hatnote to Angeles City (optionally). I think the Urdu poetry should be the primary topic and the city's old name is already served by the term "Culiat". --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 23 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_22&oldid=1047026038"