Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2022.

Fog Version[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. MBisanz talk 01:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this describes a pre-release version of Resident Evil 4. However, it's far too vague to be a valid redirect. My first thought upon seeing it was Silent Hill's HD collection. Needless to say it will likely just cause confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this started life as a stub article, but if restored to that it would be speedy deletable under A10 as a duplicate of Resident Evil 4#"Fog" version (to where it should be refined if kept) so there is no issue with deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine. The only place "fog version" is mentioned on Wikipedia is at the target, the only search results are for the target, partial title matches (e.g. "blue fog version", "lake fog version"), version numbers for the FOG project (someone searching would use a specific version number, and likely wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia anyway) and/or not encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: too vague. Veverve (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it isn't vague at all, for the reasons I explained above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting such a vague expression to a RE4 page is not justifiable for the readers. The expression itself is toovague with no primary topic, whatever its use may be on Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is rather vague even in the video game community. "RE4 Fog version" will be a different story. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:53, 13 February 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.

Return to launch site[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. I have restored the deleted section, so the original concern has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Cubefox: on the history of the page:

"Redirect section does not exist, article does not contain information about return to launch site."

The redirect was removed and the article was blanked, but since redirects are cheap and this probably warrants a discussion (and it shouldn't be blanked), I'm bringing it to RFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But RTLS is currently not discussed in this article, so redirecting to it would be misleading. I suggest delete. --Cubefox (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed, in the boost back home material -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also discussed in Space Shuttle abort modes#Return to launch site, so and simply restoring the blanked section at the current target is likely the best way forward. Widefox; talk 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WHy? It's a valid redirect to several targets. Widefox; talk 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has too many possible targets, and the expression is in itself too vague. Veverve (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Space Shuttle abort modes#Return to launch site , WP:SNOW Keep - this is a valid subtopic, and there still exists at least one valid target for it, with no valid reason to delete per WP:RFD#DELETE. Better still, undo the original section removal of sourced content at the original target that was unilaterally removed by a controversial single editor here [1] at the correct broader-scope article that this redirect currently points to. (I've put a note into the current target's talk page to consider restoring the section/article). Widefox; talk 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - it's a Space Shuttle abort mode and it's used for Falcon 9 boosters that land on the ground (one, two, three, ...). The Falcon 9 reuse articles discuss this mode. --mfb (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mfb - to consider as a dab page - it would qualify as a WP:DABCONCEPT with all entries being examples of the topic, with no entries not being examples - result: it would not be a dab page. The scope of the current target is a good location for the section to be restored to. Widefox; talk 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Space Shuttle abort modes#Return to launch site seems like the best suggestion so far. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Widefox: No, they are different things. For the Space Shuttle it was an abort mode in an emergency, for Falcon 9 it's a routine maneuver to recover the booster. In both cases something returns to the launch site (trivially, given the name), but it's a different vehicle part for a different reason, hence the need for disambiguation. Redirecting to the Space Shuttle abort mode is completely missing the current use of the expression and will confuse readers looking for the Falcon 9 maneuver. --mfb (talk) 02:11, 26 February 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.

Mambo Kingz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Mambo Kingz

DJ Luian[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. MBisanz talk 01:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, DJ Luian is not Bad Bunny, why redirect here? Muhandes (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the artist is mentioned in the discography and biography. They might have a single that charted though so a page could be considered if there are articles to back it up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 10 February 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.

1992 Sudanese coup d'état attempt[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. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a 1992 coup at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not a single mention of a 1992 coup was mentioned in the article CR-1-AB (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There were arrests made over a coup plot in April 1992 according to this source.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but if we don't have any information at this target it's not a helpful redirect, and it's not clear that al-Bashir's biography is the most relevant place to add content related to this. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1992 in Sudan doesn't exist, there is nothing relevant in Category:1992 in Sudan or sub-categories and no mention of 1992 in History of Sudan or Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation (the ruling authority any coup attempt would target). If we had content on this it would be mentioned in at least one of those places. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the content provided by Pawnkingthree was added to any article, and it stayed, since there is no much information other than that some arrests were made, we could have kept, but delete for now. Jay (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per Rosguill. --Thesmp (talk) 13:57, 18 February 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.

Russian land[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Russian land

Vardan novel[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. ✗plicit 00:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirect created by page move. Cant see the redirect being of any use. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there was a typo, I would have supported. This one is harmless, keep per WP:R#K4, no good reason to delete. Jay (talk) 16:00, 17 February 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.

The Andrew formerly known as Prince[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 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a minor gag or meme on troll forums like 9gag. It is not a plausible or noteworthy search term. It appears to have originated as a joke proposal at Talk:Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#"Prince_"_Andrew_WRONG!. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Probably an argument for WP:RNEUTRAL but this doesn't seem to be a widely-used term and appears to be a short-lived joke on Twitter/9Gag, so would be an obscure search term for Andrew. --Bonoahx (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a plausible search term.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chortle, chortle At least he won't have his own Prince-like squiggle symbol (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic, mildly bizarre. SN54129 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I wish it can be kept, but we have to it's too silly CR-1-AB (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unencyclopedic, and makes me wonder if its creator's account is compromised. Miniapolis 23:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible except for a flash-in-the-pan joke. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a joke that was wider than just a few places online, and I don't think its creation implies anything about the creator's account. Indeed if the term had caught on as a nickname then it would be an entirely appropriate redirect, but there is no evidence at the moment that it has or will, so delete. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant search term. Andrew has not been stripped of his princely title, and is still in the list of potential successors to the British throne. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete explanation of where it started Despite the laugh I got out of it. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ho Ho Ho, but Delete.TheLongTone (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny, but pure nonsense and totally unencyclopedic. Keivan.fTalk 05:01, 16 February 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.

Folklore of Poland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Folklore of Poland

All4[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 All 4. Jay (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that this page become a disambiguation page; when a Google search for All4 is done, all of the top results display information for All 4, the streaming service. A few results displayed information for the car. So since both seem like plausible searches, it makes sense for a disambiguation page. – DarkGlow • 14:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree However, as 90% of those typing in "All4" are trying to get to the British Channel Four streaming service known as "All 4", I think it would make even more sense to make this a redirect to All 4 and then have a top of page redirect on the All 4 page saying:
    "All4" redirects here. For the Mini Countryman car models equipped with the all-wheel-drive powertrain branded "ALL4", see Mini Countryman.
    Thomas Blomberg (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to All 4 with a hatnote. I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary and most people searching this would be looking for the company I think. A7V2 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 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.

Ian Ho (actor)[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 13:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this page to be redirecting here, or even to exist at all. He has other roles in TV shows such as Overlord and the Underwoods, The Expanse, and Elinor Wonders Why, and as such I feel that this redirect would be inappropriate for people looking for info on the actor. I think that removing to allow for article creation in the future is the best option. wizzito | say hello! 06:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (1) To allow uninhibited search. (2) To encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. A7V2 (talk) 08:08, 14 February 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.

Ningla A-Na[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) feminist (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to have this as a red link to encourage a future article about this documentary, rather than redirecting it to the incident that it's about Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. At the moment there's one line about the docu at Aboriginal Tent Embassy and more could be written there before creating a page for Ningla A-Na later on if needs be. Mujinga (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep expansion on that topic, a doco, might emerge from the article on the embassy; as noted above it is currently targeted to a fact. ~ cygnis insignis 13:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:20, 10 February 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.

Brain Sucker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Brain Sucker

Goat sucker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Goat sucker

Liczby wymierne[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 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. Rational numbers are a general concept with no specific affinity for the Polish or French languages. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 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.

アラビア数字[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 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. no connection between the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and the Japanese language 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 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.

Matematiker[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 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. There is no specific connection between mathematicians and the Swedish/German languages. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 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.

Alleinheit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Alleinheit

Govno[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. As unlikely search termin English. Jay (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under "unspecified criteria" but I thought it best to send it to RFD. The reasoning was "The word "govno" is not discussed is this article, and it's NOT a russian mat word". Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's a Russian word meaning "shit" but not centrally mat, which is a subcategory of profanity. Also seems like an unlikely search term in English, the Google hits are all definitions. Rusalkii (talk) 20:42, 10 February 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.

[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 Private Use Areas. Restored previous target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this Private Use Areas character, and should it be redirected back to Private Use Areas? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the eggplant emoji should redirect to the eggplant article. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eggplant_emoji#Popularity_on_social_media_and_cultural_impact without further comment ~ cygnis insignis 14:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Private Use Areas. This is not the eggplant emoji on all devices. The eggplant emoji is this codepoint: 🍆. On my device the nominated codepoint displays as either of two rare Chinese characters or as a pi with a strike through it, depending on the font. On other devices it will display as other symbols, because it's part of the Unicode Private Use Area. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Mx. Granger. This is showing as a PUA on my device (Chrome on Windows 10), the aubergine emoji already redirects to the correct location. --Bonoahx (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per above. On my machine it shows as Unicode box E34A. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per above. I too see no character at this location (just a box), but my character identifier extension identifies it as private use character. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 11 February 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.

Hardener[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 soft redirect to Wikt:hardener. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While two part expoxy is a well known example of a hardener, hardener is not synonymous with epoxy. A hardener is just "something that causes something else to harden", there are all sorts of other materials where hardeners are found, e.g. Phenol formaldehyde resin and Polished concrete. There are also a load of non-material based uses of this term, e.g. colouring agents in Stamped concrete and software used to harden computer systems. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here, soft redirect to wiktionary, disambiguation or retargeting to point at something like Hardening all seem like sensible options. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Redirect to hardener which gives a good general definition of a chemical hardener as well as more generic one. MB 04:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to hardener, per MB. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 10 February 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_February_10&oldid=1074579130"