Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2022.

Mexican Australians[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 deleted by Ponyo per G5. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Australia or Peru and minimal mention of Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador, Argentina, or Italy at the target, delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 6 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.

Spanish immigration to Paraguay[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 deleted by Ponyo per G5. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of immigration to Paraguay, Panama or Nicaragua at the target, seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10 signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 6 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.

維基大典:卷首[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular association between our main page and Chinese. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Chinese, actually :) This is the redirect used by people who change "zh-classical" to "en" in the URL of the Classical Chinese Wikipedia. There's about as many of them as you'd expect. —Kusma (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Actually, Oxygen-dioxide (talk · contribs) created several such Chinese redirects that most likely should be deleted. Brandmeistertalk 23:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other redirects created by that user almost all meet the Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products clause of WP:RLOTE; they are Chinese names of Chinese companies, Chinese railway stations, or Chinese games. The only exception I could find was 伦敦 → London, which would need a separate discussion. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a Chinese translation Thingofme (talk) 01:19, 7 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.

List of goods[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 Goods. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a list of goods, nor do we have a centralized List of products or List of commercial products. Delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to goods, which is somewhat more relevant than the current target. Someone could conceivable start a Lists of products page (related to Category:Lists of products), but this isn't it. pburka (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reconsidering my position and striking the delete option. "Goods", in its current form, is an enumeration and definition of different types of economic goods, and is therefore a suitable redirect for "List of goods". pburka (talk) 19:01, 7 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.

Invasive native[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) 02:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect somewhere else, such as native species. The most common definitions of invasive species exclude native species, so this is a misleading redirect. Per common terminology, an invasive species must be introduced in the area it is acting invasively. The term "aggressive" native species is sometimes used, e.g. Solidago altissima in lower Midwest prairie ecosystems. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as creator – Thank you for notification. I oppose because "Invasive native" is commonly used: [1][2][3][4] – Invasive Spices (talk) 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Scientist hat on for a second, but we do discuss native species as being invasive, especially when they suddenly shift their range. Usually though, we discuss non-natives that are invasive because it's much more common for a niche to open up to them through transport, etc. For natives, that usually is a different barrier to the niche, though geography can sometimes do it too.
Editor hat on instead, and this redirect works. There's no real harm in having it, and it leads to an explanation if someone actually does search for the term. If someone makes a common mistake of thinking invasive only means non-native, this helps there, which is the goal of an encyclopedia. KoA (talk) 18:51, 7 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.

Beckton Riverside station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Beckton Riverside station

Roma Volley[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 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Roma Volley" and "M. Roma Volley" are two seperate clubs, the first one shouldn't serve as a redirect to "M. Roma Volley". Maister1921 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this have another target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:24, 6 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.

Specific city[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned at the target, does not appear to be a term of art based on a GScholar search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Rosguill: I thought this title sounded familiar; last year, the edit history at this title was fractured when an editor moved the edit history that was previously sitting at Specific city to another title. (I have since fixed this issue.) This title was previously nominated at RfD a few years back, but it was not documented at Talk:Specific city until I just fixed the history and placed the template. (Not sure if this changes your stance in the matter for this redirect, but may be worth reviewing this information.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 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) 15:05, 6 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.

Serbo-Romanian language[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 12:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect implies that the Romanian spoken in the Timok Valley, commonly known as "Vlach", is a mixed Serbian-Romanian variety, but this is false. See Talk:Vlach language in Serbia#RfC on the status of the article, there is consensus that it represents a Romanian variety. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there another target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: seems to be OR and I found no proper retarget. Veverve (talk) 10:03, 6 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.

Stephen Mann (theater owner)[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. ✗plicit 12:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough to keep an own article, so it was redirected, and now has been deemed not notable enough at the target article, merged info was removed. Happy editing--IAmChaos 06:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The redirect does no harm, serves to direct people interested in Stephen Mann to the correct cinema chain (there are two of similar name), and covers the attribution problem if someone undoes my removal of the text from the Mann Theatres (Minnesota) article. I'm not sure what benefit is gained by deleting it? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep added a mention back to the article. The section blanking seems to have been very premature, as it literally took a single Google News search to find WP:RS confirming that he and his brother operated the business after their father's death. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mention was added back. There is plenty of history at the redirect and content was merged to the target, hence we need it for attribution per Espresso Addict. Jay (talk) 14:36, 12 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.

Tectonic Plates[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. Almost every conceivable solution has been suggested, with none of them commanding a decisive following. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see discussion on the WP Geology talk page. CrunchyRocks (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plate tectonics is without question what our readers are looking for. Plate tectonics is also the primary topic for tectonic plates, so a disambiguation at tectonic plates is not appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Tectonic plates (lowercase form) was a redirect to Plate tectonics from 2001 until 2017, since which time it has been retargeted 3 times. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I do not support a move of Tectonic Plates (film) at this time. I instead believe Tectonic Plates and Tectonic plates should target the same place, and since only the capitalized form Tectonic Plates is part of this discussion, it should be retargeted to where the lowercase Tectonic plates targets, which is List of tectonic plates. Any further changes warrant a different discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your other options #1 (which is not part of a subsequent RfD). Are you saying you are not considering such an option any more? Jay (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said a requested move discussion could be initiated, separate from the RfD. I don't support a move being the outcome of the RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I have reworded my comment above. Jay (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above wasn't meant to advocate the film as primary either. It's simply proof that the title should lead somewhere rather than being deleted. A primary redirect to either Plate tectonics or List of tectonic plates with a hatnote to the film seems best. Certes (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was not going by your comment. Jay (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of tectonic plates. --Thesmp (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ho hum. It's difficult to see an optimal solution here. We could either have both redirects (Tectonic plates and Tectonic Plates) go to the same target and add a hatnote there for the film, or we can turn the title-case one into a dab page because of WP:SMALLDIFFS (which will unfortunately still require a hatnote). The film is really obscure (see how much views it gets compared to all the three relevant redirects [6]), so in either scenario we'll be creating navigational machinery that will be relevant to a tiny proportion of readers who use it. Leaving the film aside, the most appropriate target of the redirects is Plate tectonics (the target of the singular Tectonic plate) and not the list – this matches the long-standing status quo, it received support in the linked Wikiproject Geology discussion, and it fits with the overall patter of similar redirects (The redirect Animals goes to Animal, not to Lists of animals, Countries redirects to Country and not to List of countries, etc). – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 21 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.

Leah Gordon[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. and moving Leah Gordon (photographer) to Leah Gordon. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the redirect. This redirects to Vance McAllister#References, where this person is not mentioned. She is mentioned elsewhere in the article, once. Here's that sole mention: "McAllister's aide Leah Gordon was alleged to have leaked the video to the Ouachita Citizen. Both aides resigned in 2014." Deleting this -- to my mind, utterly unnecessary -- redirect would allow Leah Gordon (photographer) to be moved to plain Leah Gordon. I'd delete the redirect myself without a second thought -- except that McAllister is, or recently was, a US politician, which can be a touchy area. Hoary (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The political aide is likely not notable enough for her own article per WP:1E. A Google search shows only minimal hits for her, all related to the scandal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just being unnotable does not preclude having a redirect about them. That is why there is a special template for Redirects With Possibilities. Havradim leaf a message 10:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Leah Gordon (photographer) to Leah Gordon, as the only notable (and thus primary) topic for that term. We could consider adding a hatnote to the WP:1E researcher but probably shouldn't for such a minor event. If moving a different article is considered ultra vires for RfD then retarget to the photographer with a view to moving later. Certes (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom and Certes. Jay (talk) 15:32, 12 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.

Giurtelecu Şimleului Jewish Cemetery[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 22:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The next in my "Măeriște series", there are an unusually high number of redirects for a Jewish cemetery/graveyard (30!). The article does mention there is a cemetery, but gives no additional information about it. If a searcher is using any of these terms, they would have already known that; they would be wanting additional information that Wikipedia does not have. Therefore, "searchers" (using the term in quotes because I am skeptical of the plausibility of all of them) are going to be disappointed by where they end up and will not find the redirects to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5C2E:58C9:C0A0:5A (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand It is mentioned in the target, on the last line of the history section. only a few of these should be kept, I would suggest the first. There is fairly extensive coverage available for most Jewish cemeteries (existing or destroyed) in Europe, and there's potential for an article. Keeping place for one is an appropriate function of a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most (or all) of these were listed in a 2013 RfD (which I just added to this discussion), and it had to be withdrawn because the list was exhaustive. The same may need to be done for the current, and may need to be covered with shorter nominations. I am fine with deleting the titles having "Giurtelecu Şimleului" in them, others need to be looked at individually. Oppose DGG's workaround of keeping the first in the list, and deleting the rest. Redirects are discussed on their own merit, and not on their listing position in the nomination. Jay (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. --Thesmp (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's below the granularity for which we provide redirects: as Tavix has pointed out, the only information in the target article is the one that's already present in the titles of each redirect. Maybe the topics are noteworthy and more content could eventually be added, but that shouldn't be taken for granted, as the information in the article is only sourced to an (apparently defunct) database of over 10,000 cemeteries: that doesn't guarantee there'd be much to say about each entry. Also, these redirects crowd out from the search results the actual articles about Jewish cemeteries that are out there (see Category:Jewish cemeteries).
    There are also several sets of redirects that are undesirable for additional reasons: the ones with "jidov" make gratuitious use of an ethnic slur, while Jewish Cemetery from Transylvania and the ones that only mention Giurtelecu are ambiguous: the Giurtelecu of that article isn't the only one with a Jewish cemetery in it, and that's also obviously not the only one in Transylvania. – Uanfala (talk) 02:10, 25 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.

Department of public services[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Department of public services

Pedocriminality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Pedocriminality

Arthur Sylvester[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to playwright Arthur L. Tubbs, who used it as a pen name, or structural geologist Arthur G. Sylvester. There doesn't appear to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'd suggest disambiguation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attempted a dab at the redirect. Jay (talk) 08:10, 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.

Čale[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Čale

History of cats[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#History of cats

Cat tenderizing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Cat tenderizing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_6&oldid=1120439178"