Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2022.

Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics[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 23:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for this and a draft already exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow the draft to be moved here in 2024. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:21, 30 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.

Flatiron Partners[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! 02:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

flatiton co-founded by wilson & Jerry Colonna (financier) Enigmamsg 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Jerry Colonna (financier). Might as well redirect it to one of the founders, and I"m not sure why it matters which. Ovinus (talk) 18:28, 15 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) 21:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per others. The target was there from 2008, and no reason why it should change. The content about the subject is same at both targets. Deletion makes it harder to find relevant info because of several other usages of the term. Jay 💬 17:13, 5 September 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.

Debut issue[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 Periodical literature#First. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the "first issue (of an American comic book) to feature a fictional character" is what most people mean by "debut issue": I would have thought it would be the first issue of a thing (comic book, periodical, newspaper...). This current redirect is therefore confusing and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If there were an article for first issue of a publication, we could disambiguate "debut issue", but there's no such article. In the absence of any other plausible redirect target, better to redirect to the only meaning of "debut issue" that has an article than to have nothing at all. —Lowellian (reply) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Confusing and certainly misleading. No need for keeping this around if it's not helping anyone. CycloneYoris talk! 23:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Periodical literature#Volumes and issues per both editors below, which is a much better alternative than keeping the present target. CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the extremely late retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 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.

Hario V60[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 Brewed coffee#Hario V60 now that the redirect subject has been added to the article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, seems like a minute detail that is unlikely to be DUE. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hario V60 is one of the most important brewers in pour-over coffee. This article is a bit of mess right now, I will try to improve it and at least add a mention of it, though it might be notable enough for it's own article as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a section on methods in brewed coffee. It is also possible that that section should be merged into Coffee preparation#Brewing and the Hario V60 should redirect to that section.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only mention in Brewed coffee#Methods is just a name drop and a bluelink. Nothing actually about this. If it is notable then it will benefit from a redlink to encourage article creation. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the V60 is important in pour-over coffee, and is the most-used brewer in the World Brewers Cup. Instead of deleting the redirect, the article it redirects to should be updated with more information on the V60. JackDunnCodes (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just added a section on the V60, but I am new to editing Wikipedia so someone more experienced may want to make some improvements. JackDunnCodes (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional info about the device was added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:31, 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.

Wikipedia:DENIALS[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect, that points to a single sentence of WP:PUBLICFIGURE out of context. Seems to have been created as part of an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedia doesn’t currently have a dedicated policy on denials, just a one-sentence statement at WP:BLP that already includes an anchor for easy linking. And this redirect makes the linking even easier, nothing wrong with that AFAIK. I say keep regardless of whether this redirect is used at Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Anythingyouwant was the creator of this redirect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I did, thanks for mentioning. And User: Sideswipe9th is among those who have deleted use of this redirect. I did not, however, create the anchor used by this redirect, and the anchor seems just as legitimate as the redirect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2022(UTC)
  • Don't care/no opinion, however.... FWIW, the anchor was created here [1] by user:Herostratus in June 2021, with edit summary add in-section anchor for link from WP:MANDY, an essay which refutes this. Of course, that essay has undergone extensive recent revision but FWIW, that's the origins of the anchor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This just appears to be one in a series of attempts to game policies, article content, and essays that our creator doesn't like. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Making Wikipedia policy easier to access is not gamesmanship in the least. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see wp:MANDY. I see nobody else taking up your cause. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know what cause you’re referring to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let's not decontextualize policy in order to WIN disputes. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to #Public figures - people are using it, and the fact that it was created or used during a dispute is not a reason to delete the redirect. That said, it's far more useful to read the whole subsection than just the isolated final sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the whole subsection already has at least three redirects to it: WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:BLPPUBLIC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It can have more! I don't think DENIALS needs to be a displayed shortcut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So readers can slog through seven sentences before they see anything about denials? Anyway, AFAIK, no one is suggesting that DENIALS should be a displayed shortcut, it can be an available redirect without being displayed as such at WP:BLP. It seems silly to have an anchor and then force people to type a long tedious name to access it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't describe a paragraph and two examples as a slog. There's vital context in the sub-section heading and early language that is missed by redirecting to the single, final sentence. This distinguishes this case from WP:MDYCOMMA, given as an example below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that MDYCOMMA is not a good example; it redirects to the middle of a section rather than the start of a section, skipping over information in the same section about how to avoid commas. In any event, there are tons and tons and tons of other examples. WP:3RRBLP redirects to WP:Edit_warring#EX7. WP:TPA redirects to WP:Blocking policy#TPA. MOS:CLEAR redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity. MOS:FMC redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#FMC. WP:NORPS redirects to WP:No original research#NORPS. Etc, etc,etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No, we shouldn't have an unmarked redirect to a single sentence made by someone in a fit of pique. Is that really even a question? Loki (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are too much. I’ll give you credit for cohesiveness. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a useful redirect to a relevant part of a major policy (BLP). The history of a mere redirect is not relevant, and it's no more decontextualized than numerous other "WP:" links to pieces of policy. That proponents of the WP:MANDY essay seemingly disagree with this rule is also not relevant. Crossroads -talk- 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep This is an easy to remember shorthand for an important policy statement. People who want more context can easily scroll up. But the sentence speaks for itself.--agr (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In practice this is an effort to promote a single sentence (pulled out of context) to the level of an independent policy in its own right; it's easy to see that if this redirect is used people will cite it as a policy in its own right. That sort of promotion should have discussion and a clear consensus first, given that this aspect of policy is clearly controversial and has ongoing disputes about how it ought to be applied. There's no indication that this sentence has ever had the level of discussion or consensus-building that would be necessary to emphasize it in this way, especially since the discussions that do exist suggest that it may not have a clear consensus as to its meaning. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every Wikipedia policy that I know of has redirects to specific pieces of it, without elevating each of those pieces to an independent policy in its own right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not aware, off the top of my head, of any policies that have redirects to specific single-sentences, only to complete sections. If you want to give that sentence the significance of a full section, demonstrate a consensus to do so on the talk page. I don't think, though, that such a consensus is likely to exist. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common and mundane in Wikipedia guidelines. See, for example, WP:MDYCOMMA which is a quick and painless way to get to the anchor at WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MDYCOMMA. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An absolutely necessary sentence/section in BLP to make sure WP stays compliant with NPOV in regards to BLP. There are some that support the WP:MANDY essay (which is to say that simple/obvious denials can be omitted) but that is definitely still in dispute there. --Masem (t) 01:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, this discussion is about a redirect to a specific sentence in the BLP policy, and not the policy itself. No-one here has disputed it as part of the policy I believe. This discussion is about whether or not a shortcut to a specific sentence, out of context from the remainder of the section, is proper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone realizes that, but if someone doesn't, then thanks for your clarification. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem's comment was sufficiently vague that it can be read as though he's !voting on keeping the sentence in the policy, instead of !voting on keeping the redirect to the sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems clear User:Masem supports keeping the redirect because it redirects to an "absolutely necessary" sentence, rather than an unimportant sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. First, there is zero harm for redirect in terms of WP's performance, so we should only get rid of redirects when they are not useful. WP:DENIALS (given that DENIAL is take by a humor page) is absolutely useful to point to policy-level advice about the inclusion of denials from BLP. While we do not have to show that shortcut (I've been there with the number of shortcuts that point to WP:NOT but not advertised there) having it available as a clearly understand pointer to policy level advice is useful. Masem (t) 02:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Delete arguments at the above link are pretty appalling. The link points to a section in a rule, which is very common (in this case it's not a section actually, but a sentence in a section, which same difference pretty much IMO). The sentence reads "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported..." This is in WP:BLP.
A lot of people don't like that. They don't want have to report denials. They want to be able to say "Mr Unlikable was accused of mopery" periodt rather than "Mr Unlikable was accused of mopery, which he vigorously denied". Well sucks to be those people because WP:BLP is a core policy. And because of course you're going to everything reasonably possible to give our victim a fair shake. That is the spirit of BLP.
But, people are allowed their opinion, we are not rule-bound here, and advocating for rule nullification is allowed (altho WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is often worth considering too, particularly when you're talking about core policies).
If people want to excise that sentence from BLP, fine, they can run an RfC and try, and good luck with that. But while it remains part of BLP it needs to be pointed out, and have WP:DENIALS in place in order to do that. Especially since the essay Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies exists, which basically says "nullify that sentence". I don't agree, but it's legit to have that essay. What's not legit would be to delete WP:DENIALS without deleting WP:MANDY and WP:MRDA which point to that essay. That truly would be saying "We like WP:MANDY, and while a contrary rule exists we want to at least make it harder for editors to point to it". That would be taking sides.
Which, for large important issues like this, this page is not for. Rather an RfC -- a WP:CENT RfC I'd think since we're talking about a core policy here -- discussing whether "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported..." should remain in BLP, and if so if WP:DENIALS should also exist, if Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies should continue to exist and if so if WP:MANDY should also. That's bigger than this page. Herostratus (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Is it actually wikipedia policy? Yes. Is this an easier way to access it, in a manner that conveys what the policy is in short form? Yes. The deletion arguments sound like they have an axe to grind, like they disagree with the policy, or at the very least that they disagree with how the policy is being applied in debates. That's fine, they can disagree with the policy in the proper places for that, the village pump or RfCs or similar. But this is not the place to debate the existence or usage of the policy. This is merely the place to discuss whether a redirect is useful, clear, and unambiguous. This redirect meets those qualities easily. Fieari (talk) 02:32, 30 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.

Jewishm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#Jewishm

Charles and Mary Beard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#Charles and Mary Beard

Pnetophyta[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 delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. "Netophyta" would be a plausible phonetic misspelling. I can't see somebody knowing that the first letter is not pronounced but not knowing whether that letter is a P or a G. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not plausible, not used (no links unrelated to this discussion, averages less than a pageview per month--more consistent with scraping and gnoming than with any actual use by readers--& only 6 google results for "Pnetophyta", which seem to all be wikipedia/wiki-mirrors/wiki-derived). :AddWittyNameHere 02:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author here, I can't recall why I made this or what purpose it was supposed to serve. Feel free to delete -FASTILY 03:34, 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.

2887[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 as the more helpful-to-readers solution. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article - If this is valid the so are all the other years? No reason to think someone searching for this is after the year rather than the number or another use, so non helpful KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic Note that currently a lot of other years are in fact redirected to that article too, such as 2888, 2890–2900, and 2902–2999 (2901 being a dab). 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1234qwer1234qwer4 It came up at WP:NPP and made no sense to me and when I did a spot check 2880, 2881, 2882, 2883, 2884, 2885, 2886, 2887, 2888, 2889 most didn't and it just seems random, so I submitted to test the waters. Oddly 3rd_millennium#29th_century only has an entry for 2883 and that is one of the non-linked ones. However your correct that it's more than just this one and I would say the rule should be it its not listed it should not be redirected. KylieTastic (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Category:Redirects to a decade and Category:Redirects to a century, and Wikipedia:Timeline standards says that [a]rticles for the year 4000 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant millennium, so there might be an argument in extending this to future years as well (though we don't have Category:Redirects to a millennium). 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attempted a dab draft at the redirect per IP64's suggestion. Jay 💬 03:18, 5 September 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.

Template:Notodntidae-stub[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 speedily deleted by Plastikspork per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it should at utter least be retargetted to {{Notodontidae-stub}} instead of the generic {{moth-stub}}, but imo, this is pretty clearly a one-off misspelling that's not common enough to warrant a redirect.

(I'd CSD it, but it was created in late 2020 and thus isn't particularly recent) AddWittyNameHere 01:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reason to keep an unused misspelling of a template. Plantdrew (talk) 01:55, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_29&oldid=1108848356"