Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 26, 2022.

Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Russian invasion of Ukraine

Quantity of electricity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Quantity of electricity

Front hole[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 Transgender sexuality#Transgender men 2. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not use this term. Would suggest instead targeting Transgender sexuality § Transgender men 2, which does. (The one issue I see with this is that the vagina / front hole is not only relevant in the context of sexuality, but the solution to that would be to break Anatomical terminology among transgender people out into its own article, which could be done at a later date; this could then be summarily retargeted.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirection per nom. Crossroads -talk- 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the term only used in trans contexts? There also exists the redirect Lower front hole; if we place any weight to that fact, then "front hole" may be ambiguous even if we only stick to human anatomy. – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: I'm not seeing any other senses of "front hole" that a reader would expect encyclopedic coverage of—i.e., descriptive usage (holes that happen to be at the front of something) but no usage as a term of art in any field other than the one in question. As to lower front hole, I'm not seeing that in any scholarly works on trans sexuality, including my copies of Fielding's Trans Sex and Erickson-Schroth's Trans Bodies, Trans Selves; I'll RfD that seeking deletion if no sources turn up by the end of this discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting: it's important that the term is mentioned in the target article, even if the meaning is "vagina", as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's likely not a common enough term that it's due weight to use/mention at Vagina. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 29 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Social networking 2.0[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 02:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. However, the target article does mention Web 2.0 a few times, and it seems it may be somewhat synonymous to the redirect, so possibly weak retarget to Web 2.0, but "weak" since the redirect technically isn't mentioned there either, thus delete world probably be the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's past article history that makes it clear "Social networking 2.0" is not synonomous with "Web 2.0" * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Web 2.0#Social Web per nom. Helpful for those who want to know what 2.0 has in offer for social networking. Jay 💬 15:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck off to ancourage article creation. Jay 💬 03:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Web 2.0 is historically when social media was in 1.0. Web 2.0 related pages are unlikely to be what readers are looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Rosguill, social networking's "version number"—and let's just quickly establish these are all just meaningless buzzwords—lags behind that of the web generally. Web 3.0 is a disambiguation page, and while both topics there mention social networking, there's nothing that lets us really deliver on this search term. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Macaulay Culkon[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 21:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned either at the current target or the original target Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As a Futurama geek I can attest that this background character was mentioned in the dialogue once during the episode in question. It's probably discussed at fan trivia communities, but highly unlikely to be a search term here. Delete as housekeeping.---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above findings --Lenticel (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Macaulay Culkin as an {{R from misspelling}}. It's probably not the most likely search term, but if it was used in the TV show, it is a plausible one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as too trivial. No results in an external search in the context of Culkin, except for a fandom site and reddit. Culkin's article has mentoins of parodies, but not this. Jay 💬 03:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Social network creation[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 💬 04:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the use of the word "creation" in this redirect, it may not be clear what this redirect is meant to refer. There is the section Social network#History this discusses how the concept of "social network" began, but there is also the section Social networking service#History with similar information. Given the vagueness and lack of clarity about what this redirect is meant to refer (possibly creating a new social network(ing service)?), I think delete is the best route to take to allow search results to better serve readers. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} that was an article for over a year from 2007 to 2008, but then was subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could also mean installing the service. Probably delete due to bad style, ambigious name. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - content at the page was not merged following BLAR, and is unsourced and unsuitable for restoration. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Electronic sociability[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. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target or Social network, leaving the connection between the redirect and either of the respective targets unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, I recommend Mediated communication instead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget per Piotr; not a set phrase and rarely used, so prefer delete, but retarget to mediated communication seems significantly better than current. Rusalkii (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (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, Jay 💬 15:30, 26 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Digix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Digix

Brainwallet[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 Cryptocurrency wallet#Wallets. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be possible to add a mention to Cryptocurrency wallet and retarget the current redirect there. ([1]) Carpimaps (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to Cryptocurrency wallet yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:28, 26 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Taihoku County[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Taihoku County

The Royalty Tour (Mary J. Blige and Nas Tour)[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 restored article and sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:XY issue, although they are billed co-headliners of the tour, why the article is BLARed without discussing the outcome. Either the issue as you get the WP:PT, the harder you get, the way you've pass or fail the NTOUR which they've been co-headliners. I'm open to restore article and bring this to AFD, so the discussion could be broadened. I will tag Dylanvt, the BLARrer to formally speak out on BLARring the co-headlining tour and TartarTorte to apply the similar opinion on how co-headliners are redirected to the artist page without discussing to RFD 2600:1700:9BF3:220:88E:619E:9003:4C6E (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where it should be redirected, but the article certainly doesn't pass WP:NTOUR. I'm more or less neutral about what to do with it as long as it's not maintained as a standalone article. Wikipedia has a big (though I'll admit not crucial) problem with non-notable concert tour articles. Dylanvt (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Royalty Tour without redirect, and merge content in to Mary J. Blige and Nas articles. Retarget to the article that has better and more useful coverage of the tour. If the coverage is same at both, then keep, or retarget to the other, it doesn't matter. Jay 💬 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A page move shall happen there and it could be questioned to WP:AFD to determine the outcome of the notability of this concert tour. Its okay to move the page to The Royalty Tour without redirect, after restoring the article and send it to AFD as it should be. Tagging TartarTorte, to share their opinion of this. Co-headlining tours shouldn't be BLARed without nominating to AfD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:88E:619E:9003:4C6E (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I view this to be a pretty similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows), where the page was restored and AfD'd and ultimately deleted at AfD. TartarTorte 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article from history without prejudice to Afd, consistent with very similar recent Rfd linked by TartarTorte above. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Diffuse term[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "term" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 The section of "A lightwarp is a technique of which an object in the geometrical world refracts light based on the direction and intensity of the light. The light is then warped using an ambient diffuse term with a range of the color spectrum." It is mentioned in the article. Des Vallee (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough it is. I was originally just thinking of retargeting this redirect to Computer graphics lighting#Lightwarp after discovering it is mentioned: However, it doesn't seem really clear that the phrase "diffuse term" is defined very well in the target article, meaning it could have a definition exclusive of what is already present in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 06:33, 26 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Refined oil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Refined oil

Eashoa[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 Yeshua. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. It seems to be a modern reconstruction attempting at pronouncing "Jesus" as it was pronounced back in the 1st century. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep retarget. There's a decent number of non-RS arguing that this the correct romanized name for Jesus. It's close enough to "Yeshua" that I think it's tolerable to have as a redirect without a mention of this exact spelling. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed per Lenticel below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Yeshua since it seems to be a variant according to Wiktionary. However, its probably best to show this to an expert on the matter. --Lenticel (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Porridge (TV series)[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 Porridge (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous; see Porridge (2016 TV series). Retarget to Porridge (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Very clear primary redirect. Far more significant than the later sequel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 2019 RM determined that partial disambiguation should not be used for this series (although I note that you opposed that in the discussion.) 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about moving the article! We're talking about a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Porridge (TV series) and Porridge (1974 TV series) are the same article, there's no reason to keep the excessive disambiguation in the title. However, the RM determined that the title should be disambiguated. 162 etc. (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget the 1974 one has 17,735 views but the 2006 one has 2,038[2]] which probably isn't enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Brandon Roberts (musician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Brandon Roberts (musician)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_26&oldid=1132065447"