Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

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

The Beautiful Truth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18#The Beautiful Truth

ArKiVe[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 ARKive. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was redirected to arXiv in 2007 (see prior version), but there's no connection to it. And is an unlikely typo for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned, and potentially ambiguous with ARKive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ARKive due to being an insignificant misnomer for ArXiv. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ARKive, a more plausible title. Glades12 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 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.

Dissociality[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 Anti-social behaviour. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect both to Antisocial personality disorder as the other article only mentions "dissocial" in the context of the disorder, while the disorder article explains that "dissocial personality disorder focuses on affective deficits" and thus explains it better. GreenReaper (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both should redirect to Anti-social behaviour. I originally created the Dissociality redirect for use at ICD-11. In the ICD-11, there are no separate personality disorder categories in the traditional sense. Instead, the ICD-11 uses two categories: Personality disorder (6D10) and Personality difficulty (QE50.7). Both are measured by five treats, with Dissociality (6D11.2) being one of them. Both redirects should not point to Antisocial personality disorder because the ICD-11 considers this category to be somewhat obsolete, even though many believe that category-based diagnosing should be retained. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Onvaccation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Template:Onvaccation

Placer Dam[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 12:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misnomer which an editor recently unable to find sources to support, leading to a page move. Unless editors can find evidence attesting this as an alternative name, the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from move}}. It may be wrong, but the article was at that title since 2008. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added placer dam which points to the same target. There seem to be other non-notable dams correctly known as Placer Dam, e.g. [1] (southern edge of the map, second square from the right); additionally placer dam in sentence case seems to be a a type of dam [2] (related to placer mining?) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:38, 10 July 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.

Chinese p[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 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely abbreviation; New York City is also completely irrelevant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:TI[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Wikipedia:TI

Financial dis[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 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely shortenings. There are also more financial districts and financial centres. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no primary for this strange redirect and it is better to leave this as a red link to allow the search results to show. Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speed and efficiency do indeed matter. Who has the time to type out the whole words “Lower Manhattan”? Common sense should reign here. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:07, 10 July 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.

Filipino co[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 12:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL, partly ambiguous shortenings, and in no way restrictive to New York. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No connection to NY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:55, 11 July 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.

LGBT culture in New[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 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"New" what? New York is not the only place starting with "New". 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Mx. Granger. New where? New York (of those, New York state? New York City?) New Jersey? New Mexico? New people? New Wikipedia, even? It varies from person to person what is "New" in terms of stuff and places, and those redirects are just search bar clutter by now, plus they could possibly cause a plague of WP:ASTONISHMENT among our readers. Regards, SONIC678 22:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as too ambiguous to target anywhere. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. AddMore-III (talk) 13:43, 13 July 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.

Filipinotowns in[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 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"in"/"from" what? New York City is certainly not the only place where these could be. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd also support blocking that user from creating more useless redirects. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Nothing wrong in shortcuts. Why would you block that in this world of speed and efficiency? Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot, can you explain how on earth these unambiguously refer to New York City? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. These in large part redirect to the most likely search. Perhaps not 100% every time, but relatively close to it. And they are innocuous. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe they are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most likely search? How? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. @Castncoot: When you type for example "Indians in" into the search bar, you'll get results from other places, not just NYC. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then people can type in whole what they are specifically looking for, lol1VNIO. But that’s no reason to hold up the most common shortcut. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy, common sense, and should be kept. Common is common sense. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. At least some of these have reasonable redirect targets that aren't NYC. For example, Koreatowns in would more usefully redirect to Koreatown. pburka (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – not useful for searching and the current targets are way too narrow. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except those with reasonable targets, which can be retargeted to the appropriate locations, like Pburka argues above me. There'll probably be a lot of WP:ASTONISHMENT if people just type in the term sans the location, in most cases the destination will appear after the last word of the clutter. We need to declutter the search bar by doing one of those two actions with each of those things, whichever is more useful. Regards, SONIC678 22:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't see anything that can be kept even if it had a less inappropriate target. We shouldn't have redirects for arbitrarily truncated search phrases. – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Uanfala and others. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and block user, per Gonnym. Anyone capable of creating such a mess is a nuissance, and must not be allowed to waste the time of productive editors. AddMore-III (talk) 13:25, 13 July 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.

Lgbt c[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 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"c" can mean anything, and if it was referring to LGBT culture then it's unclear why it would be specifically the one in New York City. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that a "c" here unambiguously refers to culture (in New York City or not)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It’s the most searched LGBT culture page. These in large part redirect to the most likely search. Perhaps not 100% every time, but relatively close to it. And they are innocuous. I respectfully and with justified conviction believe they are worthy and should be kept. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, redirects that clearly cause WP:R#ASTONISH situations for a large fraction of readers are definitely not innocuous. Would you prefer to turn LGBT culture into a redirect to LGBT culture in New York City and move the article to "LGBT culture (general)"? Not to mention that you did not even explain why "c" should mean "culture" in the first place (see Special:PrefixIndex/LGBT c for lots of other topics starting with c, for example). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt many would be astonished by any stretch of the imagination. The ‘LGBT c’ most often leads to a LGBT city culture article. As far as moving LGBT culture —> LGBT culture (general), yes, I would support this suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 15:14, 10 July 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.

Chinatown,[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL trailing comma resp. removed last character, and the main target would be Chinatown anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all – recently created redirects that are unlikely to aid searching. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These shortenings can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, someone entering "Chinatown," is looking for a specific Chinatown (not just the article on Chinatown). However, since we can't know which one they are trying to find, this redirect in the current state is just misleading, but would provide no benefit whatsoever if retargeted to the Chinatown article either. Further, entering "Chinat" in a search engine just gives a lot of unrelated companies/brands/etc., such as "ChinaT" or "ChiNat". 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, common sense needs to reign. What’s common is common, not esoteric. Speed and efficiency do matter and I respectfully and with justified conviction believe these are worthy and should be kept. Castncoot (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason to keep any of them, there is already a Chinatown article, and an extra comma or unfinished words do not indicate its location in any city. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonyms --Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as arbitrary, misleading, and untargetable truncation redirects. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per mello. AddMore-III (talk) 13:43, 13 July 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.

Koreatown,[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WP:UNNATURAL trailing comma, and the main target would be Koreatown anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These shortenings can occur. Why would you not keep that in this world of speed and efficiency? Castncoot (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, someone entering "Koreatown," is looking for a specific Koreatown (not just the article on Koreatown). However, since we can't know which one they are trying to find, this redirect in the current state is just misleading, but would provide no benefit whatsoever if retargeted to the Koreatown article either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your statement that it provides no benefit whatsoever is one which I respectfully disagree with. Castncoot (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do I understand you correctly that it should be retargeted to Koreatown? 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – recently created redirect, too ambiguous for the current target and not useful for searching. Second choice: retarget to Koreatown. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundled for same nom reason - I !vote for Delete both COurtesy ping to participants pre-bundle @Mx. Granger, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Castncoot: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @IAmChaos Note that these did not have the same nom reason... Filipinotown without a comma is still a redirect to the same target as the one with comma nominated here, whereas Koreatown has a standalone article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but in light of the many noms for the same author, I stand by bundling as being a good way to keep this log page short. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unlikely typo. If kept, redirect to Koreatown would be best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. AddMore-III (talk) 13:43, 13 July 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.

Cell tropism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Cell tropism

Shi Hao[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Shi Hao

Retards FC[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 the target article has been redirected at AfD, and the primary redirect has been deleted without opposition at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9 § Retard United, the keep argument is no longer relevant. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources that refer to "Retard United" of the Ascension Island Football League as "Retards FC", so this seems to be an implausible search term. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, per WP:G10 and take Retard United with it. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the R-word seems to in fact be the actual name of a real team in that league, not an insult directed at the league. G10 does not apply. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I'll retract my contribution in favour of the redirect's fate being decided at the target's AfD. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Name of a team in the league, will be deleted per G8 if the target is deleted at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the team is "Retard United", not "Retards FC". Nobody in the world is going to be looking for an amateur soccer team on Ascension Island called "Retard United" by searching "Retards FC". It's plainly implausible to me. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. GiantSnowman 10:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per –LaundryPizza03; as a {{R from misspelling}} for the "United" form. clearly if people only remember the memorable part and forget the "U" part, searching this way is plausible. Considering the low profileness of the team, this is a possibility. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that the target was redirected into a section that does not mention the team. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaundryPizza03: and 64.229.88.43, would you want to revise your votes since G8 is not applicable any more? @Mhawk10: do you want to modify your nomination rationale since "Retard United" argument may not be relevant now with the target changes. Jay (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the new nomination WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Retard United. Jay (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 10 July 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_July_10&oldid=1098893606"