Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2022.

Jreg[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) 04:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an academic journal that shares this abbreviation, which is the Yale Journal on Regulation <https://www.yalejreg.com/>. I don't see a reason that the ironic candidate whose campaign website is this angelfire website is the WP:PTOPIC when there's an influential 40 year-old Yale journal that has its own full article. As such, I believe that this should be retargeted to Yale Journal on Regulation, which appears to be the primary topic with respect to long-term significance for this term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Yale Journal on Regulation ever referred to as "Jreg" or "jreg"? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @Red-tailed hawk, would you like to bundle JrEg, or do you see that as distinct in terms of WP:DIFFCAPS applicability? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to bundle that one; I don't see them as distinct in terms of WP:DIFFCAPS here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: Can we also bundle JREG? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone currently proposing any change to it? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but is casualdejekyll doing that below in point#2? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. JREG is probably best as a redirect to the journal, in my opinion. casualdejekyll 11:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard bluebook abbreviation for the journal would be the "Yale J.Reg.", though citation styles that drop the period (like Chicago style) would render this as "Yale J Reg". A quick search shows that it's also referred to as Jreg on Zoominfo (<www[dot]zoominfo[dot]com/c/jreg/470660562>). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It's not an ironic candidate. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to Wikipedians, but the guy actually 100% unironically wants to build a wall around Ottawa and engage in Ottawexit.
    2. JREG redirects to the Yale Journal. I don't see why anyone would type it in title case and expect to be taken to the Journal.
    3. Jreg was a large youtuber before they were a political candidate, and although they aren't individually notable as such I would think that there would be people less familiar with how Wikipedia selects article topics that would assume they deserve an article. Therefore, I think there's likely more people typing "Jreg" expecting Guevara then people typing "Jreg" expecting the journal. casualdejekyll 23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Guevara. Wondering if that's at least worth restoring to draftspace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you forgot (I do myself sometimes![Humour]), but I'm not an admin and can't see deleted content. So as far as that's concerned, I have no comment on the issue. You'd think maybe there'd be coverage on one of the many things they've done (journalism, poetry, music, comedy, a pundit on Russia Today of all things) but I'm just not seeing it. casualdejekyll 00:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the extent to which the candidate is post-ironic as opposed to actually ironic is a bit of a red herring. The basic fact is that we have a notable academic journal and a decidedly non-notable political candidate; the notable journal is going to be the WP:PTOPIC here and I honestly don't think that the capitalization of "Jreg" substantially disambiguates from "JREG". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the candidate is ironic or whatever variation of it, it's not really relevant to the RfD anyway. Everyone seems to describe them as an anarchist too, and I have my reservations with that as well, but I don't feel like wasting too much time here. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. casualdejekyll 00:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JrEg per WP:DIFFCAPS. JrEg is a correct stylisation of the YouTuber's name, and is not a correct stylisation of the journal's name (which is either JREG per common usage, or JReg/J Reg/J. Reg based on ISO 4, but certainly not lowercase r and capital E). No opinion on Jreg. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JrEg and Jreg going to the candiate, keep JREG going to the journal. This seems like a no-brainer to me, they don't use the same capitalization, so there's not much of a conflict, and we can just leave a note on either page that says "For JREG/Jreg, the journal/political candidate, see JREG/Jreg" Joe (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jreg, JrEg, and JREG as each capitalization is only used to mean one of the possible topics. The citation "J. Reg." does not lead to either of the first two, while zoominfo is a database that is apparently so spammy that it has had to be added to the blacklist. eviolite (talk) 00:14, 8 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.

Angryverse[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 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is way WP:TOOSOON, and I can't find anything remotely reliable about this supposedly upcoming game beyond a possible TikTok ad leading to a game design survey. My vote is delete. TNstingray (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until the game's existence is better-verified. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:18, 7 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.

Irish Internationals[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 23:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at title match for any of the topics at the target page. Without that connection, the use of the word "Internationals" in the redirect is potentially vague, and could refer to various topics such as any of the pages beginning with "Irish International". Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Irish Internationals are players who have played for Ireland in an international match in at least soccer, rugby, cricket, hockey, fencing and probably at least most other sports that feature one or more international teams representing Ireland (either the Republic or the whole island, depending on the sport) so the current target is definitely too narrow. Irish International is a badminton tournament, so that isn't a good target either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 24 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) 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there is no single target. Jay 💬 18:18, 7 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.

Hyposomnia[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 Sleep disorder#Insomnia where the disorder is mentioned. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target. I suggest retargeting to Sleep disorder where it appears once, or as a soft redirect to its Wiktionary entry at wikt:hyposomnia. CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split two articles. In insomnia, one generally fails to sleep, and even in cases they manage to sleep, they still wake up restless but with no feeling of tiredness. In case of hyposomnia, one involuntarily sleeps too little and feels restless and tired afterwards. Huge difference in how two conditions are treated. Erkin Alp Güney 10:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sleep disorder. According to NIH, “Hypersomnia may be caused by another sleep disorder (such as narcolepsy or sleep apnea), dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, or drug or alcohol abuse. In some cases it results from a physical problem, such as a tumor, head trauma, or injury to the central nervous system.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sleep disorder#Insomnia. Jay 💬 12:15, 31 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 18:18, 31 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.

Latina (Reykon song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Latina (Reykon song)

Hong (disambugation)[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 11:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"(disambiguation)" misspelled, delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 10:00, 31 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.

LiON[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 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "LiON" nor "LiOn" are accepted abbreviations for Lithium-ion, and are confusing because they may be is mis-typing of Lion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proper abbreviation is Li-ion. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lion, but I'm fine with deletion because I wouldn't have created the redirects to Lion in the first place. Since we have them, though, WP:CHEAP applies. casualdejekyll 00:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice delete both since they don't appear to be the correct name of anything listed at Lion (disambiguation) (though I am not sure if LiOn is a valid alternative way of writing Li On, another name for Srigim); second choice retarget to Lion (disambiguation) to match LION, given that someone who deliberately types in CamelCase (which is even more unlikely to be accidental than typing in all caps) is unlikely to be looking for the normally-capitalised topic at the base title. Finally note that we have a disambiguation page Li-on, which probably shouldn't exist in the first place (a hatnote would seem to suffice, especially since one of the entries is erroneous). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current target is not relevent, and no alternate targets because of the odd capitalizations. Jay 💬 17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nonsense abbreviation/capitalization. These are not likely alternative capitalizations for "lion" and I could not find anything linking "LiOn" (no spaces, capital O) to Srigim. eviolite (talk) 00:18, 8 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.

Batman 4[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 06:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a 67 IP user brought up in the discussion concerning the "Batman 5-8" redirects, the movie in question is the fifth rather than the fourth Batman movie, plus there's the reasons the nom gave in the discussion. Delete these unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 04:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Batman films have consistently never been numbered, and it's implausible to treat them as if they were. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:51, 2 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.

La Casa de las siete tumbas[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 trainwreck but other participants are advocating simple, bold action case by case. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various redirects from individual film titles to a generic list of their country's films. Wikipedia does not have an established practice of doing this for films -- if a film doesn't have an article, then its name should usually be left either unlinked or redlinked so that people know that an article doesn't exist, and can create one if they're so inclined. A "film title to filmmaker" redirect might be useful sometimes, but there's very little need for a "film title to List-of-Country-films-of -YYYY" redirect, and we don't have an established practice of doing this for any other country.
Exclusively in the case of Argentina, however, there appear to have been a metric shit-tonne of these "film title to YYYY-list" redirects created, despite various problems. Sometimes the title is not reflected in the list at all. Sometimes the title is reflected in the list, but the list provides no additional information about the film except a repetition of its title. Sometimes the list wikilinks the same title, so that it's just functioning as a recursive redirect right back to the same list you're already on. Sometimes the list wikilinks a different spelling of the same title (e.g. differently accented, differently capitalized, English instead of Spanish title, etc.) so that its entry remains a red link even while a redirect for that same film has already led you to the list.
I've even already caught cases where a redirect led to the list, while the list led out to a proper article about the same film, which thus should have been the real redirect target; and cases where the redirect was leading to the wrong year's list; and even a case where a redirect that led to the wrong year's list and a proper article about the same film were both sitting right next to each other in the category.
Furthermore, WikiProject Film has recently deprecated its longstanding practice of deeming the base "National films" categories as "all-inclusive" categories that had to directly include all films from that country even if they had already been extensively subcategorized for genre or other characteristics -- but the sheer number of these that are sitting in Category:Argentine films is deeply impeding the process of getting that category sorted out, because the lists rarely if ever actually provide any information from which I can glean what genre subcategories to move the redirects to. So, if at all possible, I'd like permission to just zap them all on sight instead of having to keep coming to RFD with batch after batch of these -- but there are far too many of them to just batch all of them here in one shot. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like permission to just zap them all on sight instead of having to keep coming to RFD. If it were solely up to me, then this would be a no. You list multiple different types of redirect and based on what you say above the answer to all of them isn't necessarily deletion. For example, some should be retargetted to the article that has the slightly different spelling, others should be retargetted to the director, etc. Yes, some of them should be deleted but what you are proposing is too broad, especially as you haven't precisely defined the scope of what you want to delete. You are in effect proposing a temporary speedy deletion criterion, so it should meet all the requirements listed at WP:NEWCSD, but the above fails points 1 and 2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "zap" would include retargeting the redirect to somewhere other than the list if a viable redirect target can be identified, and is not (and was never intended to be) just "delete all regardless of context". But the number one most important thing here is that no matter what happens, every single one of the redirects has to be cleared out of Category:Argentine films, because that category has to be emptied out by diffusing all of its current contents into the subcategories, and it can't become a multi-day job because each individual redirect necessitates half an hour of individual investigation — I have to get all of the redirects out of the category one way or another, and I have to be able to clean out the entire category in the quickest wham-bam-next manner possible without investing more than 20 to 30 minutes total on the entire job. So if you've got some other idea that balances the urgent need to empty out the category against the need to not have to invest hours and hours into creating dozens upon dozens of batches of seven-day discussions about each individual set, I'm all ears. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally retargeting a redirect to somewhere which discusses it doesn't require discussion unless someone disagrees. But I agree that RfD isn't generally well set up for large batches of similar redirects, as we are seeing with the recent nominations of decades, centuries etc. A7V2 (talk) 06:31, 26 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) 02:46, 31 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.

Denvilles halt & The Battle of Havant[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 06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like while bots change the targets through double redirect fixing it should probably target Havant New railway station but neither its current target or the possible retarget above cover both Denvilles Halt (which was the name of Warblington railway station) and the Battle of Havant (which is covered at Havant New railway station). This seems like a WP:XY so it should probably be deleted. TartarTorte 00:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Talk:Havant New railway station seems to be wear discussion of this confusion has ended up after many page moves, but that's the only place that mentions the Battle and Denvilles Halt in the same place, such that I'm not certain Denville's Halt had any role in the battle (Havant New unquestionably did). It therefore seems unlikely that there will ever be content at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an untargetable XY. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:19, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_31&oldid=1109329015"