Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2021.

Genocide of Christians in North Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Genocide of Christians in North Korea

PagodaWest Games[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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their website shows they've worked on things other than just Sonic Mania. I don't think it should redirect to Sonic Mania if they've made other things besides Sonic Mania Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - what is your suggestion? To have no redirect at all? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you're proposing it be changed to a different target where they are discussed more, I'm not really sure where you're going with this. That's not really a valid reason for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 1 September 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.

List of Tremors in 1991[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 deleted by Fastily per G8. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earthquakes in 1991 MoonlightVector 17:59, 1 September 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.

Ultra-religious[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Ultra-religious

Wikipedia:PROPOSE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Wikipedia:PROPOSE

Brooder[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. I see this as a soft delete, though that's usually invoked for low-participation discussions. There isn't really consensus here, but no desire to keep things as they are. No prejudice against attempts at a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a redirect to neonatal intensive care unit, was changed in 2007 to target fish known as forehead brooders. Putting "brooder" in a search engine mostly gets me results about devices used in raising poultry. I don't think it is likely that the fish are the primary topic being sought by people searching for "brooder". Plantdrew (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we are heading towards a consensus to disambiguate, but it is still unclear what would be disambiguated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need to and shouldn't disambiguate every word in the dictionary that has multiple possible uses. This kind of thing is what we have a search engine for. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how brooder comes under just another word in the dictionary. It is an uncommon word, and used in different contexts, and search results don't help. Of the first 100 search results, only 13 actually have brooder in them: 6 are about the mouth brooder and 1 about the forehead brooder, none of which are known as brooder alone. 4 are about film / fictional characters or a house having the surname Brooder. 2 about the place for chickens which are known by the exact term brooder. Someone who wants the context of the term outside of chicken farming, will search for the exact term, than rely on the default search box. Jay (Talk) 09:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. This feels like exactly what the search results are for. A disambiguation page would just be partial title matches and vague relations. ~ mazca talk 19:21, 18 September 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.

Ella French[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 List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2021. A good argument is made to point this redirect at this section that at least mentions her by name with some basic information. Those arguing for delete do have some reasonable arguments, but they are arguments regarding the content and existence of the target article itself, and are far better resolved via a talk page discussion and/or AfD of that article. A redirect discussion is not going to conclude with the deletion or refactoring of the target. If the article is deleted or refactored to remove mention of this individual, then the redirect can be reconsidered (or indeed deleted), but absent that this seems to be the best reasonable consensus. ~ mazca talk 00:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. An internet search confirms that this is the name of a CPD police officer that was killed, but it's not clear that it would be due o include at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly I would just say Delete on the basis that the entire article is a mess. Are we seriously going to create redirect pages for every police officer killed in the line of duty and retarget them to that page? That entire article is a disaster, yes I made some edits on it years ago when I was still a novice editor, but the overwhelming task of keeping up to date with that page just made me give up. Might be better to delete the entire thing or keep the article and make it so that only officers with a relevant page on Wikipedia are kept. Obvious entries like the Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli are kept in the list and entries where a cop may have been killed in some form of mass shooting or terrorist attack such as Police Officer Charleston Vernon Hartfield who was killed in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. But this is a long and difficult task so good luck. If people want to find a full list they can just visit ODMP, it's not needed for Wikipedia in my opinion. Inexpiable (talk) 17:43, 1 September 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.

Shitting position and plural[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and does not appear to be a known alternate name for the target (i.e. no relevant Google hits). firefly ( t · c ) 08:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite Wikipedia's known interest in faeces, these redirects are completely implausible. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - both are unambiguous and seem to redirect to the appropriate target. We don't delete redirect titles just because they're vulgar. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has suggested deleting them because they're vulgar. Implausible or very obscure search terms (those not found in reliable sources) are commonly deleted. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both are accurate and "defecation posture" is not a commonly used phrase. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're proposing a page move, the commonality or non-commonality of the name seems beside the point. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winston (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as implausible. Wikipedia and most reliable sources use a formal English register. Such sources are unlikely to refer to defecation as shitting. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector: clear and unambiguous. The target article, as hinted by UserTwoSix, has a rather formally worded title: I don't think many readers are going to choose words like "posture" or "defecation" off the bat while searching. And the redirect titles are not obscure: "shitting position" has almost as many google hits as "defecation posture". What is obscure is the topic, not the given search terms. – Uanfala (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you get past the first few pages of Google results for "shitting position", all the hits appear to be scat porn. A large number of the others are related to the Finnish pop single "Tina Turner Shitting Position", which seems to be a novelty title, since the lyrics have nothing to do with Turner or faeces. Several are obvious typos, and excluding the word "shifting" reduces the hits substantially. I can't find a single RS using the term. I'd say that qualifies as obscure. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. If formal WP:TONE is an argument, we do have a Shit flow diagram, and it is not even a redirect! Jay (Talk) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Unafala. Just because their use in RS is skeptic does not mean they are not useful search terms. These are properly targeted, useful redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 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.

Rayamangalam Village of Tamilnadu[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 deleted by Materialscientist per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have moved it without leaving a redirect, if i could. MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the db-author tag was reverted since the original author's contributions aren't appearing on the history page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 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.

List of highways numbered 44T[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 13:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target seems to be the only highway known as 44T. Google search suggests a few bus routes have this name, but none of them would have been known as highways. There can't be a list if there's only one of them; this doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 04:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One item does not make a list. -- LJ ↗ 20:06, 6 September 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.

Template:R from initials[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Template:R from initials

Wikipedia talk:N. G. Ranga[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 13:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XNR created by a page move that was reverted less than 24 hours later; I don't think that this cross-namespace redirect is useful or helpful. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under WP:G6 as miscellaneous housekeeping (and within the spirit of "wrong namespace"). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:G3 pure vandalism — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:14, 1 September 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.

Bloody vagina[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 Vaginal bleeding. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to point to something, it should be Vaginal bleeding, a broader topic than menstruation. That said, this doesn't strike me as a very plausible search term, and it can be used to refer to other things, most notably (and tastelessly) a cocktail. Weak delete, second choice retarget. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Vaginal bleeding per nom. I'd rather not delete. On a side note, maybe also redirect Vagina bleeding to Vaginal bleeding? Winston (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of "bloody vagina" before, sounds more like a cocktail or something. I guess a redirect o vaginal bleeding makes sense, or otherwise just delete it. EMsmile (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if there is a better article (in this case Vaginal bleeding). UserTwoSix (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No woman came up with this redirect. "Bloody vagina" is not how women refer to menstruation, it's crude and sounds like an adult horror film. Where do people come up with these strange associations? It reminds me of Neelix's redirects and his strange perspective on women's breasts. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Hi. I totally agree with you. (except for Neelix. I know nothing about that.) Just one Q though, why not retarget it to appropriate target? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Neelix, is that you? ―Susmuffin Talk 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to vaginal bleeding. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Redirects should be created for a purpose. This has no purpose and neither would retargeting it. ––FormalDude talk 22:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vaginal bleeding per nominator - whilst I find the wording of the redirect questionable, there do appear to be genuine uses of this terminology, between 0 and 2 times per day [2]. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I stand by my weak support of retargeting, I don't think pageviews tell us much here. Between creation and being RfD'd, this had 9 pageviews over 9 days. Because new redirects wind up on a number of queues and often get picked up by crawlers, this likely isn't a representative sample of how many pageviews it would be getting a few months from now. (It's actually lower than I'd expect for a new redirect with a sex-adjacent title, since some crawlers have a thing for words like "vagina".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not some media title. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (+) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to vaginal bleeding. Seems like the type of thing someone could plausibly type in if they're looking up a medical symptom. I don't quite understand the outrage at this redirect; does the word "vagina" make people uncomfortable? Mlb96 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vaginal bleeding per nom. Most appropriate target, and a plausible search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 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_September_1&oldid=1045621387"