Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 18, 2022.

Most massive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Most massive

Latina (song)[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 Latina#Arts and entertainment. Jay 💬 07:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention on target page, so no use, plus as far as I can see none of the categories are substantiated. If target is amended or better target found I have no problem withdrawing this deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 4 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) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 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.

Watered Down[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Watered Down

Highest counties[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 Lists of highest points. Jay 💬 07:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is not the only country with counties, so these redirects are far too ambiguous to point to their respective targets. I don't think there exists an appropriate target for these, so they should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting to Lists of highest points as suggested below makes sense to me. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think List of highest counties in the United States probably needs to be renamed since the title doesn't answer the question "Highest in what?" Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, never mind: Looks as though the current title is the result of a move request that occurred a couple of months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the fact that a county is not exclusive to the United States. (And well ... the ambiguousness of the word "high" and its forms.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why delete this when there is a perfectly good list of articles we can retarget to that deals with both the lack of exclusivity to the USA and ambiguity in the word "high"? Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only country listed at Lists of highest points in respect to counties is the United States. Retargeting there sets the expectation that there are more lists than just counties in the United States, which there currently is not. In addition, the current setup of the target page with the counties lists at the bottom with no section headers specifying counties could lead readers to scratch their heads, wondering why they have to go through several lines of text to figure out why a redirect which includes the word "counties" redirected them to Lists of highest points. And regarding the ambiguity of "high" ... umm, I guess one example I have without going too far off base is ... Amsterdam or Colorado. Also, "high" could even socioeconomic factors like GDP or income. The word "high" (and on the flip side "low") without an explanation of "what" is "high" is very ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that "high" is ambiguous in this context. "County" is geographical, and "high" in reference to a geographical area ubiquitously refers to elevation. It would be very odd to describe a place as "high" in reference to its economy. Who would say that "the United States is very high" as opposed to "the United States is very wealthy" or "prosperous" or whatever? It could be a reference to drugs only in a humorous, unencyclopedic tone.
    However, I agree that List of highest points is a bad target for the same reasons you've given. – Scyrme (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You say The only country listed at Lists of highest points in respect to counties is the United States. But that's not true. Lists of counties in Norway, Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, and Scotland are all listed there too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, sure enough, I'm not right on that. Struck. Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Too vague to be helpful unless a general, worldwide list is written. (Although a disambiguating 'list of lists' which points to country-specific lists would be the ideal hypothetical target, particularly as single county-specific list may create problems with synthesis and scope relating to translations of different administrative regions as "county", as well as problems with duplicate material.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists of highest points is a disambiguating 'list of lists' which points to country-specific lists. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a list of "List of highest counties in [country]" lists; it's a list of every highest point list. It could work as an {{r to section}} but only if reorganised into subsections by administrative level/division. – Scyrme (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like Lists of highest points#Intra-country lists? Nobody searching for a "list of highest points in [subdivision type]" is going to be surprised to arrive at a list of lists of highest point in various subdivision types. Personally, I think having the introduction to list visible more helpful than targetting directly to the specific section, but targetting the specific section is very significantly more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If that's what I meant that's what I would've said. It would be surprising if they were searching "highest counties" and looking for mean elevation, not highest points, and had to then search through a wall of links. I've re-organised that list to make it easier to navigate regardless of how a reader gets there. I don't have a strong opinion on targeting directly to a section vs targeting to include the introduction. The contents list makes jumping to a section easy enough even if the redirect itself is not that specific. – Scyrme (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to List of highest points, which contains several lists of highest counties. I'm not understanding the argument for deletion at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - most of the lists are by highest point, but List of highest counties in the United States is a list based on mean elevation between two extreme points. – Scyrme (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and? It's listed on the page so someone looking for that list will find it there. Why is that an issue? Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be relevant information to some people in this discussion? It's just an observation, not an argument one way or the other; I don't know why you're being so defensive. – Scyrme (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Lists of highest points - I've reconsidered. I've reorganised that proposed target so it's not a wall of links and is easier to navigate, including distinguishing mean elevation from highest elevation. Each section has a clear scope, and sublists can be organised for each country according to their own internal organisation so translation is less of an issue. I think it is now a suitable target for all these redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 18:09, 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.

Moss green[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Moss green

Modernist architect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Modernist architect

Laborare est orare[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 Ora et labora. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at AfD by User:Sinopecynic:

This page redirects to the Rule of St. Benedict, which it should not. "Laborare est orare" appears nowhere in its Latin text. "Laborare est orare" is another rendering of Ora et labora, which is where this page should redirect.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Ora et labora; the phrase is explicitly mentioned in that article. – Scyrme (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ora et labora: per Scyrme. Furthermore, this quote "laborare est orare" does not seem to appear in the entitreity of the text of Rule fo Saint Benedict in Latin from my full text search at intratext. TartarTorte 18:29, 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.

Thearch of Thearchs[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. Jay 💬 07:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thearch" not mentioned at the target, no results for this phrase on Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic title, redirecting to a problematic article, started as a bad machine translation of a Japanese Wikipedia article about a Chinese subject.
I note too that this phrase "thearch of thearchs" currently gets exactly two Google hits anywhere at all on the web. One is this page, and the other is Talk:Tenno taitei.
I second the motion to delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be an original translation by Immanuelle (talk · contribs) made during the article translation process. I get no search results outside Wikipedia for the term. – Scyrme (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current target was BLARed to Tianhuang Emperor on the 19th of August. A7V2 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes Thearch of Thearchs a double-redirect; it's still a bad, original translation, so should still be deleted. However, Tenno taitei can remain as a redirect; it's the Japanese reading of the same title. (勾陈上宫天皇大帝 = tianhuang dadi = tenno taitei) – Scyrme (talk) 14:54, 24 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.

Greatest Emperor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Greatest Emperor

Haim Romano[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Haim Romano

Forgive my laughter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Forgive my laughter

Vaanku[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Vaanku

Sangchu[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korean word for lettuce, not mentioned in the article. There does happen to be a definition in North–South differences in the Korean language#Other differences in vocabulary since this word is different N/S. It's also the name of one of the hip-hop music duo Mighty Mouth. The definition has long-term significance, but we aren't a language translation dictionary. Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China also refers to a Sangchu County in Tibet, which appears to be a transliteration of Xiahe County, but that article uses "Sangqu". MB 01:47, 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.

Bad Decisions (Benny Blanco, BTS and Snoop Dogg song)[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 Withdrawn. Will deal with the contested BLAR by other means. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article over here was BLAR'ed over a major contributor to it being a sockpuppet. However, since there were significant non-sock contributors to the article, I contest the BLAR. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi!: All you had to do if you wanted to contest the redirection of the page is revert Binksternet. RfD is not really the place to contest somebody boldly redirecting an article because it was made by a sockpuppet. It's primarily for whether or not to delete a redirect, and nobody was asking to delete the redirect (as it's a valid redirect). You can restore the article and then tell Binksternet to take their concerns to AfD. Ss112 02:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18&oldid=1106881059"