Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 18, 2022.

Stone laterite Borneo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written article that was PRODded and then redirected, but the title is not a plausible redirect. I don't think there is any content worth merging to Laterite or Borneo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. –Ploni (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator and the support voter are supporting deletion, correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi!: That is correct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:30, 19 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.

Talk:Interstate 885 (North Carolina)[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 talk page status. Participants agree that restoring the pre-redirect version is the most plausible outcome for this discussion, while the nominator ultimately failed to present a valid rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page should be deleted since it is itself a talk page for another redirect page. Redirect pages do not require talk pages, and it is also redundant for talk pages themselves to have redirects leading to them. This page is a byproduct of when a draft was being moved into the Main namespace. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This page is even listed under the category of "Temporary maintenance holdings." All the more reason to delete this page in my book. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest striking your second reason, as that is coming from Template:rfd, has nothing to do with the page itself. ​ Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to talkpage status, I guess. I don't think it's a very important question whether a talkpage of a redirect should be a redirect, proper talk page, or redlink, but I do think that redirecting a talkpage when not part of a pagemove is generally unnecessary (courtesy ping Morriswa), so, given that we're here, let's restore Special:PermaLink/621976383 and leave it at that. But I'd stress that I don't think discussions like this are a good use of volunteer time. Also, "Temporary maintenance holdings" is coming from the RfD template itself. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{ R from remote talk page}}. There may be no reason to create talk pages on redirects, but once one exists, there is even less reason to commit community and administrator effort into deleting it if they are harmless. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seemingly no consensus on what to do so far. All three participants want completely different things: nominator wants to delete, another voter wants to expand back into a talk page, and a third wants to keep the redirect virtually as is but with an extra tag.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OrdinaryJosh: why do you say that redirect pages do not require talk pages, and why would talk page redirects be redundant? Interstate 885 (North Carolina) was not a draft that was moved to main namespace. From its first edit in 2014, it has been a redirect page in main namespace. The talk page was also created at the time, but for some reason Morriswa redirected it. Perhaps you have this mixed up with Draft:Interstate 885 which was moved to the current target, and that draft never had a talk page by the way. Jay (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that this is in RfD, restore the pre-redirect version per Tamzin, and tag with {{Talk page of redirect}}. Jay (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above "talk page for another redirect page. Redirect pages do not require talk pages, and it is also redundant for talk pages themselves to have redirects". Taylor 49 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As your vote is per nom, you may as well want to answer the questions I asked the nom: why do you say that redirect pages do not require talk pages, and why would talk page redirects be redundant?. Jay 17:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and tag per Jay. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 23 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.

Tramping[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. A late proposal to move Tramping (disambiguation) may be a valid solution but did not achieve consensus in this discussion; I would consider this close to bear no prejudice towards the opening of a move request to that effect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed the target of this redirect from Hiking to Tramping in New Zealand, owing to Tramping being a term mostly exclusive to New Zealand whose subject is better covered by the latter article than the general article on hiking. That edit was reverted, so I figured it would be a better course of action to open a RfD instead to hold a broader discussion rather than attempting to change it again. I'd also note that, as far as I can tell, all but one of the articles which link to tramping are doing so in a New Zealand context (the exception being Eddy Joe Cotton). Turnagra (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Dictionary definitions ([1], [2], [3]) do not indicate the term is exclusive to New Zealand. In fact, one uses the example "We spent a week tramping the streets of San Francisco, looking for movie locations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Even if the term is exclusive to New Zealand, it still refers to hiking generally, not just hiking in New Zealand. SpinningSpark 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to tramping in New Zealand. Yes, it refers to hiking but in New Zealand. Someone searching for tramping is not searching for backpacking. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Spinningspark. Someone searching for "Tramping" is presumably looking for information about the topic in general, not just in New Zealand. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume that most of the time, someone is looking it up because they don’t know the terms. And since it refers to an activity in New Zealand, I would have thought that the specific page is more relevant than the general article. Schwede66 17:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Restoring edit-conflict-eaten comment: Participants so far are evenly split over retargeting as an NZ-specific activity or keeping as a NZ-dialect term for hiking activities in general. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace with disambiguation page move tramping (disambiguation) to tramping -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tramping and hiking seem synonymous to me. I would err on the side that this is a dialect thing rather than a completely different topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Tramping (disambiguation) to Tramping. The split between those seeing this as a NZ-specific term and a more general one support that this is an ambiguous term, and it's best to bring searchers to a disambiguation page (which is already setup as having no primary topic). There are other relevant articles searchers may be interested in at the disambiguation page besides the two discussed above. That the Tramping in New Zealand article is not already at Tramping also supports the idea that the term is not specific to NZ (though a WP:RM discussion could consider that question). As usual, incoming links would need to be checked to bypass the dab page if moved. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware that there was a disambiguation page, that seems like a better alternative for "Tramping" than a redirect. Turnagra (talk) 06:33, 24 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.

Mass shooting generation[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 18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently about how mass shootings are allegedly more common than ever but I couldn't find anything in the article of or relating to mass shootings. Without context, there's an unfortunate implication that this is a legitimate alternative name for the topic. Greyhound 84 (talk) 01:00, 5 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, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because we have no encyclopaedic content about this term anywhere. As an exact phrase it appears only in the title of two references used on a total of five articles, none of which have any relevant content (March for Our Lives#Media has the quote "Gun violence has declined precipitously over the past 25 years, and most Americans are much safer today than they were a generation ago.", which appears to be the opposite of what this phrase is about; List of March for Our Lives locations#Hawaii has the quote "This is a movement that will inspire a generation.", which is not going to help anyone). The current target, as the nominator notes, has no content related to mass shootings. So anyone searching for this who doesn't know something about it already will just be confused. If the name is encyclopaedic (I've not looked) then write the content about it first, then create the redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:33, 18 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.

Krull valuation[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 Valuation (algebra). signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. There is a passing mention at C-minimal theory. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Valuation (algebra). Looking on Scholar Google, it seeems that Krull valuations are exactly the same things as the valuation defined there, and that "Krull" is here only for disambiguating from other possible meanings of "valuation" (one of the pdfs provided by Scholar Google gives a definition of a Krull valuation that is exactly that of the suggested target). I have not a clear opinion whether "sometimes called a Krull valuation" should be added to the first sentence of the new target. D.Lazard (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of the discussion at Talk:C-minimal theory and Talk:Valuation (algebra), and expecting more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:28, 18 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 queen[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 Filipino styles and honorifics#Female Royal / noble titles. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous; "queens" isn't even capitalised – could refer to Filipino styles and honorifics#Female Royal / noble titles; also mentioned in a plausible expression at Filipino American LGBT Studies#Beauty pageants and drag. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete misleading redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Filipinos in Queens. Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the same at the current misleading redirects, and just as misleading if the article was titled 'Filipinos in Queens.' Someone searching for Filipino queen(s) is searching for royalty associated with the Philippines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s ridiculous Headbomb. Perhaps you don’t have the particular relevant topic experience, but Queens is the center for Filipinos in NYC. Castncoot (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was, and still is, actual Filipino royalty, some of whom were/are queens. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing at best. I'm not buying the Queens angle as cursory (Nationality) queen/queens search in wiki either points to actual royalty or have a list of queens in the first few hits. --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Misleading redirects. Not about queens. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading for not being about Filipina royals. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Filipino styles and honorifics#Female Royal / noble titles - They seem to be perfectly reasonable and plausible search terms for this. A7V2 (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per A7V2. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:14, 18 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.

N9NE Steakhouse Las Vegs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25#N9NE Steakhouse Las Vegs

Blake Slatkin[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 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Slatkin has produced and written for a variety of artists on numerous songs and albums, so this redirect to a specific song that barely mentions Slatkin feels inappropriate. Sock (tock talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:56, 21 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.

X̱[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25#X̱

Tweelectro[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 delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article and it's not clear whether this is a suitable target. The two articles that mention it don't really explain what it is: 1 2. Anarchyte (talk) 05:53, 18 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 cafés[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 10:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These terms don't unambiguously refer to to these things in New York City; the redirects are surprising and therefore not useful. A general article on these topics could be, but not redirecting to them in one particular city area. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:05, 18 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.

The Beautiful Truth[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 10:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned in target. This resulted from a merger in 2011, where content about a documentary film was merged into the biographical article about the film's subject; however, that content was removed before the end of 2011 as not significant or noteworthy, and has never been restored in the intervening decade. So there's just no purpose to retaining a redirect if there's no content in the target article to explain why it's redirecting there. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete for as long as that content is gone. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete". However, the article section discussed above has been re-added to the article and this redirect should be reevaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've reädded a brief mention to the target article for the reasons explained here (conflicting with Explicit's initial close in the process, hence the above confusion). The 2011 removal was based on excessive focus, but a brief sentence appears merited. Courtesy pings @Bearcat and Mellohi!. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I'd keep if the content in question returns. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. No point in deleting now that a mention has been readded to the target article. CycloneYoris talk! 02:28, 25 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_18&oldid=1100460004"