Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2021.

The pit with gino[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 03:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for, and then removed from, WRPI in 2006; currently no incoming links. Leschnei (talk) 16:21, 21 October 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:RfP[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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ✗plicit 03:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this redirect restored to it's previous target, which it pointed to for 15 years - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Chickdat retargeted this redirect to point at requests for permissions on 6th July last year, on the 7th of July they nominated it's fully capitalised brother WP:RFP for retargeting [1] which ended with a unanimous consensus to keep it pointing at Requests for page protection. I reverted Chickdat's retargeting of this redirect earlier today, which they in turn reverted claiming that they have consensus to retarget it. I can find no evidence of such a consensus existing and no discussions regarding this redirect, so I'm bringing it here. It is completely ludicrous to have a situation where WP:RFP, WP:Rfp and WP:RfP point to different targets, I came across this redirect earlier today when I ended up at the wrong place while searching for Requests for Page protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also the redirect's talk page, where someone else is complaining about the retargeting. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection per nom and previous consensus. There's no evidence of consensus for the July 2020 retarget, notwithstanding the claims. It's poor practice to vary the redirect targets based on case alone, and the one discussion we have of targeting shows a strong consensus for that target to be Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Furthermore, a spot check of uses of this redirect on talk pages show an intent to link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not to the current target of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. The undiscussed retargeting broke pretty much all the links for which it was in use; restoring it to its longstanding status will correct that. TJRC (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That redirect has actually been nominated for retargeting three times - July 2008 July 2020 and February 2021, all of which closed with a consensus for Requests for Page Protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original target per TJRC, all others above and multiple previous consensuses. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest protecting the redirect to avoid any future unilateral retargetting or other disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Requests for page protection gets WP:RFPP and WP:RfPP. Those I support; those are its only logical redirects. WP:RFP and WP:RfP. Requests For Permissions. These redirects are not used very often at their current target, but are used a lot at their other, like WP:RFP/PCR to request pending changes reviewer and WP:RFP/PM to request page mover. Even on Twinkle, where there isn't enough room for a four-letter shortcut, it's RPP. And in the February 2021 discussion, there was actually a rough consensus to disambiguate, not keep at current target. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME (I know it is usually used at RM, but I can still use it here), which I use because the regular editor uses RFP and RfP as Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, I vote to keep the redirect the way it is and to additionally retarget WP:RFP to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, as much history e.g. people linking to it on pages/comments has been lost by unilateral decision to change redirect. Also, way more people will be looking for page protection rather than additional permissions, as nobody will ever need to visit permissions more than ~5 times ever. And there was a consensus for this redirect in 2020, and no consensus for the change. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: There was a rough consensus to disambiguate in the February discussion. How about that for "consensus for this redirect?" 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you mean Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021 February_19#Wikipedia:RFP, that had a clear outcome The result of the discussion was keep for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. If you mean another discussion, then you'll need to link to it, but none of the linked discussions here show anything other than clear preference for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually 34% of the votes are for Disambiguate. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not a vote, it's a consensus. And the closer noted the consensus was keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With only three editors in that discussion supporting a retarget, and eight supporting keep, I don't see how that can be construed as a consensus to retarget. The present unilateral retargeting sought to be reversed in this discussion was not with support of any consensus. TJRC (talk) 16:09, 22 October 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.

2027 Cricket World Cup[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 11:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted many, many times before. Literally nothing is known about this tournament. It may take place in 2027, but that's it. Time to delete and salt this. This was the last AfD too, from August 2021. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt per nom and WP:TOOSOON. This can be recreated when there is something to say about the tournament beyond "it is expected that a tournament will happen at this time". Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's likely the next Cricket World Cup will be in 2027, but nothing is confirmed. As such, there's no mention at target article, which is a firm reason to delete. And salt it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the redirect mainly serves to discourage article creation. Definitely salt if deleting this. No preference on whether this (both useless and harmless) redirect should be deleted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:47, 26 October 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.

Xus[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 Disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Latromirus for background. Xus appeared as a placeholder name for Latromirus in a preprint. Xus is generally used as a hypothetical name in abstract discussions of zoological nomenclature (see [2]). Other three letter words ending in -us are also used as hypothetical names. Xus has no particular affinity for Latromirus. Plantdrew (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Tavix's findings.
I note that the only reason this redirect exists at all is that the author of the thesis that was the major source for the article used Xus as a placeholder name (X being the traditional indicator used for an unknown, and -us being the common genus suffix). Xus was then used as the article name by the creating editor, who apparently mistook its placeholder use in the thesis for an actual name. The article was subsequently moved to a more appropriate name Latromirus. The redirect "Xus" is merely debris from the move from the initial incorrect name. See discussion at Talk:Latromirus, as well as the further discussion in this blog article “Xus yus” : the problem of placeholder names in preprints. TJRC (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be okay with a delete on the basis that only one of the entities listed on the Xu disambiguation page ("X unit (symbol xu)") is subject to pluralization. All of the others are proper nouns or abbreviations for proper nouns. TJRC (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The surname can be plural (eg: The Unforgettable Memory#Xus). -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(update) In light of Tavix's findings below, disambiguation (Christus, Tolowa, plural of Xu) makes much more sense to me than redirecting. TJRC (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Wiktionary, Xus is a contraction of Christus. Xus is also attested as an autonym for the Tolowa people. Both are very minor usages, but I thought I'd report my findings. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we could dabify it with these two uses, and plural of Xu, for a 3dab -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support dab. I'm fine with this as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 22 October 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.

Naya Rivera drowning[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) feminist (+) 08:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused redirect left over from reversion of undiscussed page move TJRC (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While yes, the page move was undiscussed, and it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays, it's unambiguous and potentially helpful. Regards, SONIC678 12:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sonic. The only notable person called Naya Rivera did drown so it's quite plausible for someone to search for information about the event at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 21 October 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 toes[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) feminist (+) 08:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is offensive and abusive. ―NK1406 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Weak keep per Tavix, plus we are not Urban Dictionary, and that term is outdated and unacceptable by modern standards, but it is still used in outdated works. Regards, SONIC678 03:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC), updated 03:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an attested historical name, thus useful for someone using a dated work. Per the article: In North America, as early as 1896, Brazil nuts were sometimes known by the slang term "nigger toes", a vulgarity that gradually fell out of use as the racial slur became socially unacceptable. -- Tavix (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep, while agreeing with the nom's characterization of the phrase. The term is clearly racist, but for a long time was regrettably the common name in some areas for Brazil nuts. TJRC (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: concur with Tavix —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a dated yet plausible and sourced synonym --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree it is very offensive. Wikipedia is not censored, though, and this was the common name for the nut for decades, sad enough. But it also shows how far we’ve come. I don’t want to ignore that progress, i just don’t want to go back there. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:57, 22 October 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.

Chosen, Japan[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! 11:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like it would be more offensive than useful. Title format gives the impression that Chosen was a place in Japan when it was a different country occupied by it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more similar redirects which only reinforces the idea that this is inappropriate and untenable: Chōsen, Japan and Taiwan, Japan. In my opinion, this is leading us toward India, England; Ceilão, Portugal; Ceylon, England; America, England; and many more ridiculous redirects. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC) [Revised formatting for clarity] Coastside (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Also, redirect in question is unhelpful, confusing, and unlikely to be needed. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coastside (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are different countries except during 1910–1945, when Chōsen (Korea) was part of Japan. There are also redirects like Macau, Portugal. Konno Yumeto 05:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not seeing a reason to delete. Being "offensive" is irrelevant per WP:RNEUTRAL and the fact that redirects are NOT highly visible. As to the "title format gives the impression that Chosen was a place in Japan when it was a different country occupied by it" is irrelevant or incorrect for a few reasons, including the fact that a redirect doesn't need to be "correct" if it aids in searching, and that at least my reading of consensus on Wikipedia is that it was not an occupation at all, eg see Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule/Archive_2#Requested_move_2012. I am struggling to see how it could be considered confusing since it is literally an article about a part of Japan (or at least the former Japanese Empire) called "Chosen". The politics of the situation aren't really relevant. I believe it is plausible someone would search in this way, and I believe this is the article they are looking for. Redirects are especially helpful for articles with long, non-obvious names such as this one. A7V2 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add Chōsen, Japan
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. I think the complain would have had some merit if the target page was Korea as a whole, but the target here is Korea as part of the Japanese Empire, so it makes sense. Cavarrone 08:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This namespacing is appropriate, and I believe it won't go to the ridiculous extremes that the nom is (rightly) concerned about. Jay (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are older works referring to it as Japan territory (e.g., [3], [4]) and readers of such works ought to be able to use Wikipedia to understand them; that's the point of an encyclopedia. In contrast, I am not aware of, and do not believe there are, any significant uses of references like "India, England", etc. that the nom suggests are equivalent that would support those redirects. TJRC (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Winston (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm unconvinced that these specific terms are going to be ones anyone is using (as opposed to just Chosen), but if some feel they are useful they are pointing to the right location. CMD (talk) 08:28, 29 October 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.

Mr. Huggles[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 11:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most common enemies in the game, who used to have an article for less than a minute in November 2008 until it was redirected to the target. Now he isn't mentioned anymore on the page since the character section was removed almost nine-and-a-half years later, making this redirect seem like WP:GAMECRUFT at this point. Regards, SONIC678 01:44, 21 October 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_October_21&oldid=1073158589"