Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 19[edit]

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

Ambox[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 00:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned XNR from mainspace to template with no pseudonamespace dudhhrContribs 23:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As Ambox is basically a building block of other templates, very unlikely someone looking for it would not know to search in the template namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bsherr. Google brings up results for Ambox Limited, a metal fabrication company in Houston, that is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (I've not investigated whether it is notable), and AmbOx as an abbreviation for "ambulatory oxygen" that is again not mentioned anywhere. "Ambulatory oxygen" is mentioned, but only as a substring within the title of two different references on unrelated articles (Havi Carel, a philosophy professor, and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a medical condition), so even if they were suitable targets for a redirect we would have an XY situation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the creation edit summary invokes WP:IAR, but fails to say why this page benefits the encyclopedia, which is the most important part of any IAR invocation. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful redirect for readers, unnecessary redirect for editors. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:26, 21 June 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.

Cacoethes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27#Cacoethes

List of domes[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 Lists of domes. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 11:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. We also have List of tallest domes, List of domes in France, List of Roman domes, and List of Ottoman domes. Recommend creating a list of lists in place at Lists of domes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:37, 19 June 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.

Soft Underbelly of Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27#Soft Underbelly of Europe

Accordion City[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27#Accordion City

School omnibus[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! 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School buses are never referred to as a school omnibus anymore. On a Google search for "school omnibus" the references mostly are not for school buses. The school bus references all date to the early 20th century. If someone referred to a school bus as such today people would think they sound strange and may even get confused as to what they are referred to. 2600:1700:E660:9D60:693C:E01D:98DE:4E30 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If someone is reading those early 20th century references and doesn't know what a school omnibus is/was then this redirect will educate them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not doing any harm, and used in published works. The term being obsolete is not enough of a reason to delete. Could also refer to an omnibus bill relating to schools, but I'm not seeing any uses of that in the encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also a partial title match in a 1935 book, OCLC 858350520 (The New School Omnibus), which is an omnibus edition of stories about a "new school", rather than a new "school omnibus". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 21 June 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.

Wikipedia:LABLEAK[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 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracist essay is not where a Wikipedia-space shortcut like WP:LABLEAK should point. This should be deleted, or re-targetted so something not conspiracist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If this is what passes for well-sourced content around here, we've got bigger problems. This particular essay needs to stay in the userspace. Due redirects for well-sourced arguments.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We definitely shouldn't have a cross-namespace redirect to a fringe userspace essay. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious attempt to bypass WP:MEDRS for a biomedical topic is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an appropriate cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:LABLEAKLIKEY, a redirect to a different userspace essay on the same topic, was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. That essay is WP:PROFRINGE crap, based on pseudoscientific reasoning, and does not deserve a WP link. See [1], reverted by an IP, for details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I don't think this is helpful. Although a skimming of the relevant userspace essay suggests to me that it is likely intended as satire, not as fringe. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same rationale at at a similar recent redirect deletion discussion. Pushes speculative conclusions that are not helpful to the project that should present the view of the best sources on the topic and is not for promotion. —PaleoNeonate – 08:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, well, pretty much all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we're coming up with reasons to delete, independent of Rfd guidelines, then it calls to standardize by having an RfC about userspace essay shortcuts, per Vaticidalprophet at the LABLEAKLIKELY Rfd. Also note that the Rfd for Wikipedia:RAJ, another user essay shortcut, was closed as Keep yesterday. Jay (Talk) 17:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main difference/big question is does the landing page have something reasonable/useful to the community? WP:RAJ does, it doesn't have force of policy or anything like it, but it doesn't argue against it. WP:LABLEAK does not have anything useful, and argues against policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Worth noting that user created the essay redirect while under arbitration, as a result of which they have been indefinitely topic banned from the topic of the essay. Keeping the redirect to a userspace essay which the creating user can not edit due to a ban (nor, arguably, any other users per WP:NOBAN) seems troublesome, whether or not the essay itself was written good faith. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:23, 22 June 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 Agent (2008 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this film isn't notable enough for an article, it may be better to delete this redirect to one of the actors. The current target article contains nothing about the film Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases where it makes sense to redirect a film to a director, writer, or producer, but not many where it makes sense to point to the lead actor. I can't find any good RS coverage of the film, but IMDb and The British Council (not sure if that's an RS) give the director as Lesley Manning and the writer as Martin Wagner (who does not seem to be Martin Wagner (artist) or anyone else listed at Martin Wagner), with both serving as the film's sole producers. If either of those articles is created, it might make sense to redirect this film there, but I don't think redirecting to the lead actor is very helpful to our readers. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:24, 20 June 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.

🛩 and 🛩️[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 Airplane. signed, Rosguill talk 05:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects have pointed to Airplane since their creations (in 2016 and 2017 respectively). A few days ago User:RobloxFan2021 retargeted the former to Light aircraft. The Unicode character does indeed appear to be defined as SMALL AIRPLANE, so I see their reasoning, but I disagree. I don't think that the average person using SMALL AIRPLANE has much sense of the fact that it's "SMALL AIRPLANE", and is more likely just looking for any airplane.See clarification below In fact, on my browser (Chrome on Windows 10), the two redirects show up identically in the URL and in the tab title (but differently in the body of the page). I propose that we re-synchronize to Airplane. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC), edited 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support They look identical on my system, too. The emoticon for macOS looks like a white and blue airliner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Emoji should redirect to the clear meaning, and these two are distinct concepts that should be kept separate, especially as the emoji look different in all environments in at lease some cases (e.g. to me using Firefox on linux). Aircraft, Airplane, Airplane (disambiguation), Aeroplane (disambiguation) and possibly similar pages do need to be much better linked to each other though but that's much wider than this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep 🛦 pointing to it current target (Military aircraft) while 🛨 should be retargetted to Light aircraft for the same reason - those targets best match the defined meaning of the characters. Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just by way of clarification, I haven't added 🛦 here since I think it's sufficiently different from the other redirects, but as I said, I wouldn't object to someone else doing so. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf Can you explain how 🛩, the "small airplane" emoji, should redirect to "light aircraft", while 🛩️, the same emoji with an emoji variation selector, should point to "airplane"? ~~~~
      User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)       15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, it appears I've misread the nomination statement as saying that 🛩️ and 🛩 were defined differently? I don't have time right now to investigate further but given the variability in what the emoji look like on different systems they should, in the absence of content specifically about the emoji, be targetted at the article that best matches their defined meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thryduulf: Nah, this is on me. So, nom clarification/correction:
      In my nomination statement, I incorrectly said that only the latter is "SMALL AIRPLANE". That was incorrect. These are both that symbol, just that the first might be a text symbol or emoji depending on how a browser interprets it, while the latter is supposed to always be an emoji. On that note, 🛩︎ is a valid character (currently a redlink), using selector 15 u+fe0e, which indicates that a symbol should always be rendered as text. In other words, Redirect #2 and that redlink are locked-in versions of the two ways that Redirect #1 can be rendered.
      I think I'm getting that right, at least. Sorry for the mix-up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good, though in your nomination statement, it looks like you said only the former was "SMALL AIRPLANE" (retargeted the former to Light aircraft). ~~~~
      User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)       16:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I struck that bit. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tamzin I was clarifying your correction (I incorrectly said that only the latter is "SMALL AIRPLANE".) ~~~~
      User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)       18:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Airplane The creator and namer of the emoticon should not be regarded as an expert on categories of aircraft. A light aircraft is one that weighs 12,500 lbs, or less. What is depicted is a business jet, which is certainly not a small airplane, weighing typically well over 13,000 lbs at takeoff. So, either the emoticon should direct specifically to "business jet", or it should direct to the broadest term, which is airplane. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding "🛨", it just renders as two squares both in Safari and Chrome on a Mac, which makes retargeting it anywhere pointless on this machine. The other two emoticons are identical and offer no basis to target them differently, unless there were strong differences between the two. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They display the same way on some computers, so I'm inclined to think they should point to the same article. I support retargeting to Airplane. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m using Safari and they look the same as well so I see retargeting as the best choice.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing now from my Chromebook, I'll note that #s 1&2 look identical on it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the second one is just the same as the first with an emoji variation selector, so it's not surprising that they display the same if emoji is the standard rendering. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Emojipedia entry: [2]. Also, the difference between the two redirects is that the former ends with the special character U+FE0F ️ VARIATION SELECTOR-16. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Also adding 🛨, "Up-Pointing Small Airplane". This falls under my synchronize vote; i.e. it should be kept as-is. Pinging LaundryPizza03, Thryduulf, and Mx. Granger since they !voted prior to this. There's also 🛦, "Up-Pointing Military Airplane", which currently points to Military aircraft. In my opinion, though, there's an obvious enough difference between that and these (at least as they render for me) to justify separate targets. But if anyone thinks that that should be synchronized too, please feel free to add it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Airplane. Having them point to different targets based on visual differences that aren't obvious to everyone is extraordinarily not helpful. Incidentally, editing from Google Chrome on my Windows laptop, that first emoji renders one way on this page, another way in the URL, and a third way on the actual redirect, and I am incredibly confused as to why. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    URL vs. webpage is about different softwares' fonts: Chrome's font for URLs must do it one way, while Wikimedia's fonts for pages do it another. A bit more surprising for it to be different on the same webpage, but Wikimedia does use different fonts for headings (which is what you'd see on the page) and paragraph-type content (which is what you'd see here), and things can be unpredictable since the CSS font-family attribute means your browser might be using one of several fonts. I'm curious, Compassionate727, do the emojis show up the same or different for you in this test?
    • Font family used in headings: 🛩
    • Font not modified: 🛩
    -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: They are the same. However, changing the font size changes the emoji: pasting the same emoji twice, I see a different result for 🛩 and 🛩. I think maybe the huge version is the "real" version and Chrome automatically replaces it with a different emoji that has fewer details, leaves less whitespace, etc. when it has inadequate space to display it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Now I'm editing from Chrome on a different Windows 10 laptop, and I see the same emoji on both this page and the redirect. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 It's obvious that either both 🛩 and 🛩️ should point to light aircraft, or both should point to airplane, since they are both effectively the "small airplane" emoji. The question is whether they should be synchronised with redirects such as ✈ or not. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: I'm confused. Does my vote suggest that I didn't understand that? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 You wrote Having them point to different targets based on visual differences that aren't obvious to everyone is extraordinarily not helpful. I'm pretty sure they point to different targets because of the incomplete retargeting by the user mentioned in the nomination, and it is clear that "visual differences" would not be an argument for having them point at different targets since they both depict a small airplane, so that's why I was confused. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Ah, I understand. Well, there was some argument further above about which emojis depicted which kind of aircraft, which was still ongoing at the time I made my vote. I know next to nothing about aircraft, so I'm not going to wade into that; I merely intended to say that because the characters display differently for various users, they should point to the most precise concept clearly indicated by all variations, which I think is merely airplane. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: I note that you suggest targeting light aircraft as an option. Please see my discussion above where I state that the emoticon depicts a business jet, most of which do not qualify as light aircraft. So, I'm on board with your other alternative to target Airplane as the most general interpretation of the emoticon. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HopsonRoad I did only suggest that since one of the redirects was already pointing at that target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to airplane. Small = Light doesn't fly, because whoever's weird enough to do a wikipedia search based on emojis most likely went oooh airplane or this one's cute/looks better! rather than try to find a distinction between categories of aircrafts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Small airplane does redirect to Light aircraft. We might need to have a discussion about that, because you aren't the first person to argue here that they aren't the same. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:03, 23 June 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.

Meira Oy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#Meira Oy

Roberto Civille Rodrigues[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. No need to waste the community's time on this. WP:IAR. ✗plicit 12:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense. Who in the right mind would redirect a person's name (perhaps, their own) to Procrastination just because they want to procrastinate from writing a biography article? And, who would have thought this redirect should have been deleted long ago but procrastinated from sending it to RfD (which it has been just now)? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G1, G3, and/or G10. Mlb96 (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, agree G1, G3, and potentially G10 apply. Polyamorph (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly the creator's user page indicates this is their own name, so G10 definitely doesn't apply and I'm not convinced that it's vandalism either so it's not a G3 candidate. G1 explicitly excludes material that is understandable, and something that is very clearly a person's name is understandable. It would be an R3 candidate if it was recently created but it's years old. This means that while it's clearly not useful, no speedy deletion criteria apply. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 19 June 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.

US Bank presents the Cleveland Grand Prix[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) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems to be a bit promotional. There is no need for such redirect. signed, Iflaq (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its the official title of that race. I created several redirects from official racing titles to actual wikipedia articles about the IndyCar races. See List of Indycar races. --Mark McWire (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more of a problem that after each season the articles about the races are moved to a new lemma just because the title sponsor has changed. I would rather leave all races of all racing series under one generic name and redirect the current official racing names there. --Mark McWire (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:OFFICIAL. SSSB (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The official title for an event is always going to be a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason given for nomination. How can a redirect be promotional? Only someone searching this (or perhaps who finds it linked somewhere) is ever going to see it. Official names should be kept as redirects, per WP:OFFICIAL. A7V2 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 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.

West End Girls- (original epic records release)[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 07:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect due to hyphen and weird disambiguator. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 19 June 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_June_19&oldid=1089269041"