Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 17[edit]

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

Celia (footballer)[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 Celia (given name). Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication at the target page, nor in a Google search, that Jiménez is ever referred to mononymously (although mononyms are a bit hard to search for). In light of that, I don't see why this would more likely refer to Jiménez than to Célia Šašić, whose name is frequently rendered without diacritics (e.g. in this official FIFA article). Furthermore, mononym+parenthetical disambiguation format isn't very likely as a search term. (Celia on its own is a DAB.) Thus, delete per WP:XY. If there are other footballers named Celia (or diacritic variants thereof) who we have articles on, dabbing could also be reasonable, but I've only found these two. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 23:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman: Celia Sasic never went by Celia mononymously, but Celia Jimenez does, so I don't understand why you would need the additional disambiguation with birth year. Seany91 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are both footballers called Celia. It's that simple. GiantSnowman 20:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree strongly: this is over-disambiguation when only one player is known and plays mononymously. There's a bunch of footballers with the first name "Marta" and we don't add birth year to Marta (footballer). Seany91 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GiantSnowman's idea is definitely preferably to XY deletion, so striking my nom !vote, and leaning retarget. @Seany91: Do you have more citations showing significant mononymous use? To me, her being referred to by her first name on her athlete profile doesn't on its own establish that. With enough citations I'd be inclined to !vote your way. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every game report, press release, and story from both league and club in the past 1+ year refer to her mononymously. The player also plays with mononymous name in jersey, which indicates that she is actively choosing to be identified as such (which kind of renders this entire discussion rather redundant IMO). I disagree with GS’s suggested move target above and agree that I should’ve just been bold and moved the main page rather than putting in a redirect. Seany91 (talk)<
  • Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on policy here, but I believe that an article can still be moved to a title that's at RFD, right? It just moots the RFD. Of course, doesn't preclude an RM to move it back. Not necessarily saying you should do that; just a procedural note (that, again, I'm not 100% sure on). -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not necessarily wrong on policy, though my strong first preference would be to let one discussion resolve first. If there are going to be simultaneous ones, just best to make sure everyone in each discussion knows about the other. It can still cause headaches for closers. --BDD (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and again the actual NWSL profile you already cited, among others... Seany91 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Celia (given name) per GiantSnowman, though note that we actually need to add the footballers there (and the list of people could use some brushing up besides). The discussion has adequately demonstrated for me that there is more than one footballer known mononymously as Celia—a shirt name is enough evidence for me. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the standard you're gonna have to do a lot of disambiguation with Spanish players who only have first names on shirt but don't actually go by mononymously. Seany91 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment: I think the OL Reign articles that Seany91 linked might be the exception; most of the articles cited by Celia Jiménez (footballer) refer to her as Jiménez or Jiménez Delgado when speaking in their own voice. It's worth noting that OL Reign is the club that she plays for; I'm not sure how being affiliated plays into their weight when ascertaining naming conventions. I was initially inclined to vote to disambiguate Celia (footballer) because we can't redirect it to a dab page that includes both Celia Jiménez (footballer) and Raffaele Celia, but now I'm not sure what to do. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly a change from the club's side to start consistently refer to her as "Celia" mononymously around the same time that Quinn publicly stated their wish to stop being deadnamed. Obviously the two situations are not the same, but at least my personal opinion on such cases is consistent: when a player has clearly (or appeared to have, based on club sources) expressed a desire on how they want to be referred to publicly one way or another, we should follow. This is the same when, say, a female player starts publicly using their married name (or not), and I would say this principle should go for any public figure who has an article here on WP. Seany91 (talk) 08:02, 29 May 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.

Search Engine Journal[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 23:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioned in the article as a citation, seems like this may be a case of W:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Search Engine Journal lists Jenise Uehara Henrikson as its CEO ([3]) but no Kevin Henrikson is listed. No info at target - readers will not find any useful information here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:46, 17 May 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.

Queer Latinos in Cinema[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 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We define Latinos as Americans (i.e., people of the United States), so there's a significant mismatch between this term and the content of the target article. Looking at Lists of LGBT people, I don't think we have anything specifically on queer Latinos and/or Latin Americans in cinema. However, this was the article title for the first several months of its existence. Maybe we could move without leaving a redirect, to a benign title like LGBT cinema in Latin American countries; this would preserve the history without putting a misleading term in the search suggestions. BDD (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: I'm confused. The current redirect has no history. What's the point of moving it? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who knows what I was thinking a week ago? :P But yeah, good question. This was the previous article title, but the history is where it should be now, at LGBT cinema in Latin America. We should be safe to delete the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds fine to me, too. Confusing search term unlikely to ever give rise to substantial content. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:01, 24 May 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.

Queer platonic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Queer platonic

Portsmouth Council (Virginia)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Portsmouth Council (Virginia)

Portsmouth Council (Ohio)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Portsmouth Council (Ohio)

Gaza Massacre (2008)[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a neutral wording. Not linked from anywhere. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The first sentence of Gaza War (2008–2009) says "also known in the Muslim world as the Gaza Massacre" ( [sic] bold) with three sources. -- GreenC 03:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{r non-neutral}}. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 05:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. A lack of internal links is explicitly irrelevant to whether a redirect is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's incredibly common for us to have redirects that aren't technically accurate or are otherwise worded in peculiar way. As stated above, this is helpful enough and should be retained. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. J947's public account 23:33, 20 May 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.

Gaza genocide[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Gaza genocide

Moues[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Moues

Baketsball[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 19:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See related nomination of Trcuk. There's no WP:AFFINITY to this misspelling over any other three-apart transpositional error. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:19, 17 May 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.

Trcuk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Trcuk

"Mark Marek"[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) 01:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very unlikely search; Mark Marek without quotemarks already exists. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pageviews abound, so an old link exists? I don't know, but it's best to keep the redirect in case deletion causes problems for readers, which seems likely. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't explain those oddly high pageviews, but I think WP:RFD#K4 applies here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Page views like that suggest it's linked from somewhere external, but finding it will be essentially impossible as Google results cannot distinguish between uses with and without the quotation marks. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Even if we could locate the source of the links, we could not fix it, and deleting the in-use redirect would not improve anything while also making it more difficult for the readers using it to find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:02, 17 May 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.

Long Hots[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Long Hots

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_17&oldid=1027035518"