Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2021.

Abandoned building[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Abandoned building

New pages patrol[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 00:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only page in the list after typing "new pages", it's a cross-namespace redirect and as the target starts with "Thank you for your interest in becoming a new page reviewer" isn't suitable for a reader (or an editor who is unsure about namespaces). It's possible a reader or new editor would be looking for this but is there a better target? If not, could the page be edited to put the introduction to the process first (possibly with "becoming a new page reviewer" moved to a subpage)? There is also a redirect from New Page Patrol. Peter James (talk) 23:44, 29 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.

Master Editor Level Four Service Award[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty recent redirect (from last year) from article space to project space. There is no reason for using article namepace redirects like this. Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 29 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.

Senior Editor Level Three[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty recent redirect (from last year) from article space to project space. There is no reason for using article namespace redirects like this. Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 29 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.

Master Editor Level Four[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty recent redirect (from last year) from article space to project space. There is no reason for using article namespace redirects like this. Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. XNR with no relevance to >99.9% of readers, and maybe not even to a majority of editors. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only relevant to editors who already know about namespaces. Peter James (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 4 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.

Y̧[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't mention the combination Y with a cedilla; the letter's article mentions several diacritics but not this one, and there's nothing useful in search results. Peter James (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mentioned per !vote below. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence that this combination of letter and diacritic is used in any language. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 29 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.

Ʃ̧[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this at Cedilla or Esh (letter); unclear if this combination is ever used. Peter James (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mentioned per !vote below. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence that this combination of letter and diacritic is used in any language. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 29 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.

Ʊ̧[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 00:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention this combination of IPA symbol and cedilla. Nothing at Ʊ or Near-close near-back rounded vowel (which is where Ʊ (IPA) redirects to) either. Peter James (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worth stressing to anyone else looking at this that this is two characters (one a combining diacritic), not one. We don't need redirects for every possible combination of letter and diacritic. Delete unless mentioned. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence that this combination of letter and diacritic is used in any language. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 29 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.

Academy 360 Cougars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 14#Academy 360 Cougars

Psychology and cognitive science of reasoning[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 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8: novel synonym for Psychology of reasoning. "Psychology and cognitive science of reasoning" returns close to zero results in searches, compared to, for example, over 5,600 for "Psychology of reasoning" versus 50 for "Cognitive science of reasoning" in Google Scholar. We can't just make up new names for fields. Uni3993 created this redirect while adding "Cognitive science" to Reason § Psychology and cognitive science, which has been done, and does not require this novel redirect for a nonexistent field. Biogeographist (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:11, 29 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.

Molecular ion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#Molecular ion

Baltimore <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 retarget to Sports in Baltimore. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few baseball and football teams based in Baltimore. Retarget to Sports in Baltimore. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:15, 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. 05:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
So why not redirect to the article that disambiguates them? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. When we have a plausible but ambiguous search term we redirect it to the most specific page that links to the plausible targets. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sports in Baltimore, a more appropriate target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:20, 4 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.

Canon of Colorado[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term that could apply to other canyons along the course of the Colorado River, other canyons in the state of Colorado, or the Colorado Canyon. This could target a disambiguation page at Colorado canyon, but there was not consensus for the need of a disambiguation page in a recent related RfD. If not disambiguated, deletion seems called for to avoid confusion and rely upon search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you note cañon is an alternative spelling for canyon, so I don't think that by itself is cause for deletion. In other words, this could be a {{R to diacritic}} for Cañon of Colorado if such a redirect had merit, but I argue above it does not. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can consider this a plausible {{r from alternative language}}, because it mixes Spanish and English in the name—thus my !vote. - Eureka Lott 13:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the canyon article lede, cañon is an archaic British English spelling. The Spanish spelling includes another accent (cañón). Mdewman6 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other sources that use cannons over canyons? I’m asking because I believe that if we only have an almost 150 source that misspelled the term it’s not enough to demonstrate that’s it a plausible misspelling.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a disambiguation page Colorado canyon (currently a redlink). The RFD mentioned above said about the disambiguation page "we can cross that bridge if we come to it", it looks like we have come to it. --Bejnar (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, as closer of the aforementioned RfD: The only reason there wasn't a consensus on that part was because there was minimal discussion of it. The "no consensus" should not be taken to mean that anyone was explicitly opposed to the idea. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, to be clear in your closure you state "There's a consensus that with only one thing actually being called the "Colorado Canyon", it doesn't make sense to have a disambiguation page." But you later amended your statement to add there was no consensus regarding the lowercase Colorado canyon, which is where the dab would go since the capitalized form closed as a retarget. So the close is a bit confusing, but so was the discussion. In my opinion the discussion did not reach a consensus about a dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a WP:DIFFCAPS situation. "Colorado canyon" is a way to describe any canyon in Colorado. With both C's capitalized, there is only one thing called the "Colorado Canyon". I edited my close because I didn't want to imply that the same logic would necessarily apply to the lowercased version. (That was not per se within the scope of the RfD, so I didn't need to say it at all, but wanted to be explicit.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for clarifying. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eurekalott. My first thought was Can~on City, and the Grand Canyon (while holding the Colorado River) has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Colorado, which overwhelmingly dominates simple uses of the word "Colorado". Of course it would be different if this were the normal name (or a normal name) for the subject, but it's definitely not. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the unlikeliness of this as a search term and the ambiguity. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 6 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.

Atlanta <Sport> Team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6#Atlanta <Sport> Team

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_29&oldid=1033643513"