Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2022.

Nguyen Ngọc Tho[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Nguyen Ngọc Tho

Wikipedia:Be punished[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting as a pointless new redirect. Only seems to serve some weird passive-aggresive need. There's no apparent prose in the actual essay to explain why this would be an appropriate redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2022 (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.

14 Commonweatlh realms[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 as suggested by Patar knight and expanded upon by Jay, and keep where no specific section exists. This was a late proposal that received some subsequent support and no explicit opposition in the few weeks it has been open since it was made. If there is further disagreement on any of these in particular, this is without prejudice against individual renomination. -- Tavix (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These re-directs are already targeted towards the Succession to the British throne page. But, I'm seeking to have these 14 redirects, re-targeted directly to a section of that page. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What section do you want to retarget them to? TartarTorte 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Current line of succession" section, in the Succession to the British throne page. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the nom to have the current targets and tagged the pages to link to here. TartarTorte 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline requiring every realm be treated identically. There are different circumstances in different realms and different amounts of information about each; some "Monarchy of [Realm]" articles will have succession sections, others might have seprarate succession articles, still others have no information on that topic. Further, by allowing the UK to stand alone, you're gunning for symmety in asymmetry. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what others think. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the current redirects are valid. A person looking for information on succession may not necessarily be looking specifically for the line of succession, so it's better to have these redirect to the broader article. The suggestion made by Miesianiacal in re Canada may work as well, but I would have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Presidentman. If there exists a lot of info on a particular monarchy's succession, that article can be created and expanded. Peter Ormond 💬 12:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for 'Succession to the Canadian throne' ... this particular redirect should point at Succession to the Throne Act, 2013; there is no mention of Canada as a discrete entity on the Succession to the British throne page, except a link to the newly proposed target. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is much more to succession to the Canadian throne than just one act of parliament. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Monarchy of Canada#Succession and Regency? TartarTorte 18:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a reasonable target. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, until they're made into their own pages. But of course we wouldn't be retargeting Succession to the British throne to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom page :) GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace any self-redirects in these pages with Succession to the British throne. Australia can be History of monarchy in Australia#Monarchs of Australia (1st choice) or Monarchy of Australia#List of monarchs of Australia. Keep Solomon Islands as I didn't find anything about succession at Monarchy of Solomon Islands Jay 💬 03:33, 29 August 2022 (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.

Helen Simmons[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has produced multiple films, including Chubby Funny and Klokkenluider, which are blue links. She may be (or become) notable, but either way the redirect is not helpful. Nardog (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation if appropriate. No good reason to redirect a person to one notable work they made if they made multiple notable works. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:03, 18 August 2022 (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.

Ææ, Öö[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. Retracting a relist after clarification from participants. No rationale was provided for deletion by the nom and all other participants approved of a keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck it was be that there!?! 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: These redirects seem a bit odd. For any other Uppercase lowercase redirect like Aa or Uu it takes you to AA or UU; however, we have no ÆÆ or ÖÖ pages, so there doesn't seem to be a different appropriate target. The current targets I guess work, but could be confusing if you were trying to find something with the abbreviation ÆÆ or ÖÖ; however, I can't seem to find anything with the abbreviation ÆÆ and the closest thing I could find to ÖÖ is OÖ, which is the two letter abbreviation for the Austrian state of Upper Australia or Oberösterreich. TartarTorte 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To amend my previous statement Öö is a word in a few languages, but I think a redirect to ö is better thank a soft-redirect to wikt:öö; especially as one of those is Finnish for the name of the letter ö. TartarTorte 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doublet of majuscule and minuscule forms are commonly found in text to represent letters -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting over apparent division on what to do with Öö. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my comment was about as unclear as possible. I should clarify that I think Öö should redirect to Ö. I was saying that the wiktionary entries for öö weren't anything that is notable enough to make a redirect elsewhere and one of the entries (the one in Finnish) is the name of the letter ö. TartarTorte 19:17, 17 August 2022 (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.

Sans domicile fixe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Sans domicile fixe

Adult oriented television[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. It's snowing. ✗plicit 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting both redirects. We have no article that covers the overall concept of television content intended for adults, and Adult Swim is just one of many examples of such content. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Adult Swim is definitely not the only Adult oriented television. Most television seems to be adult oriented (unless I am completely misunderstanding this phrase). TartarTorte 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as untargetable nonsense. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However, I think an article for this specific topic might be plausible in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Adult Swim is not a plausible target for these redirects. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an alternative name for the target subject, in addition to the terms potentially referring to several television networks. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase is broad enough to lack a plausible target IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not nonsense, indeed it's a very plausible search term, however we don't have a suitable target - the current one is far too specific for the very broad phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adult Swim isn't the only adult oriented television. Close this per WP:SNOW. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:04, 22 August 2022 (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.

Malcontent provider[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 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This specific phrase is really only used in reference to Steve Bannon and had mild traction in 2012 due to this article by Amy Davidson Sorkin and again in 2017 because of Trump's election and subsequent appointing of Bannon. I am split on whether this should be retargeted to Bannon as he is the likely target of this or to delete because this redirect was created before that article, but I am finding little usage of this to refer to dissidents. The edit summary creating the redirect says coined by RMS but I am not sure who RMS is. TartarTorte 17:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The term is sometimes used to refer to Breitbart, sometimes to Bannon, and sometimes by totally unrelated (non-notable) people as a self-descriptor. In any case it doesn't appear on any of their articles or anywhere else in Wikipedia. FWIW, rms = Richard Stallman; he seems to have first used the phrase in this essay. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the anon, this is not mentioned anywhere on en.wp so there is no target that would not be confusing. There is no entry at Wiktionary so a soft redirect there isn't an option either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2022 (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.

AnCap Dave Smith[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 12:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of AnCap or Anarcho-capitalism at the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI believe there was, and it may have been removed, Dave Smith is a self described AnCap. I am busy for part of today, but can look into this more later and see about adding something to the page. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://reason.com/video/2022/07/25/should-libertarians-root-for-a-national-divorce/
Here is just one of many sources one can find justifying Dave Smith described by this label. I believe it should be fine to keep this as a redirect. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixated on the irregular format and didn't even note the nominator's concern. Those should be added to the article. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BDD. Icabobin (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now created the alternatives I suggested above. Thanks to Th78blue for the supporting content at the article. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It seems like this redirect is using the prefix "AnCap" as a title, like Mr, Dr, Rev, etc., which it isn't. The target has a sufficient number of "proper" redirects that this one isn't needed. The "redirects are cheap" argument is irrelevant when it comes to low-quality and erroneous redirects. Senator2029 【talk】 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "low-quality", but none of these redirects are erroneous. They are using a commonly used abbreviation of the word Anarcho-Capitalism, and using it as a commonly used descriptive of this particular comedian/libertarian/AnCap, named Dave Smith. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Improperly formatted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Regardless of whether this is "properly" formatted or, this would be a good redirect if this were a commonly used term (we do not and should not require someone to learn Wikipedia's article titling conventions before being able to find the topic they want to read). However, as an exact phrase, Google finds only 5 hits excluding Wikipedia - and of those two are not relevant ("I'm an ancap. Dave Smith's podcast...", "I was a big ancap/Dave Smith fan"), one appears to be some sort of search engine and the other two are from the same (I think) subreddit. That's not enough to base a redirect like this on. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second the assertions made by Th78blue, if Dave Smith identifies himself in that way, it is only natural that people will search him in the same fashion when attempting to look him up on Wikipedia. I also believe that utilizing a Google search for a figure such as Dave Smith is insufficient given that the people likely searching for him are likely utilizing DuckDuckGo or a similar privacy based search engine. In addition, this is not actually a vote and only comments adding new substance based on policy should be considered. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just repeated the exact search I did on Google using DuckDuckGo. It found:
      • the same two hits on Reddit
      • a blog that has a story about Dave Smith tagged as "Ancap" but which doesn't actually call him an ancap at all (either as a title or description, it describes him as a "libertarian comedian")
      • A single tweet that uses it as a description "Jewish comedian and hardcore ancap Dave Smith"[1]
      • Two hits for image search engine - the first page of results when following the first link contained no images labelled either "Dave Smith" or "Ancap"; the first page of results for the second link contained images of various people called Dave Smith, only one of which was the right person, and no instances of the word "Ancap".
      • A mirror of CycloneYoris' contributions (railpage.com.au)
      • Mirrors of apparently random Wikipedia articles at en.xn--jahrald-dya.vn/ including Julius von Verdy du Vernois (a German general during the Franco-Prussian war), Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (an act of the UK parliament) and Yamata Amasung Keibu Keioiba (a Meitei language play).
    So I still see no evidence that this is a term that anybody actually uses. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See no evidence? You just presented some above, but beyond that, I found other hits from doing the same search. "Extending AnCap Analysis for Vaccine Passports, Court Rulings, and Desegregation" was one involving a podcast discussion between AnCap's Dave Smith and Bob Murphy. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I've seen in any search results, or yours, refers to him as "AnCap Dave Smith" or otherwise uses "AnCap" as a title, including your most recent one which includes "AnCap" in the title and "Dave Smith" in the body, but neither anywhere near each other ("AnCap's", which would refer to someone belonging to or representing an organisation called "AnCap" appears nowhere on the page). The question is not whether Dave Smith is called an AnCap, there is plenty of evidence that he is, what we're looking for is the exact phrase "AnCap Dave Smith" with AnCap being used as a title in the same way "President" is used in "President Joe Biden". Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2022 (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.

Maurice Long[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 to make way for move. ✗plicit 12:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two Maurice Long articles, and neither seem to be the primary nameholder. Typing Maurice Long into the search bar should lead to the disambiguation page instead. User:OrangeLTE talk 04:57, 17 August 2022 (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.

CORPSE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#CORPSE

ONEREPUBLIC[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. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless redirect written in all caps. Band's name is not even stylized like this. CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do think there is affinity for all caps given the band's name on all their albums has always been written in all caps. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Contrary to what the nominator suggests, all-caps seems be to be the band's preferred stylization. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Completely Harmless.
    AistisXD (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2022 (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/2022_August_17&oldid=1108294275"