Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 23, 2022.

USS Sumner (AG-2)[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. USS Bushnell (AG-2) was already nominated separately by the nom. Jay 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of redirect recommended. The USS Bushnell/Sumner never was assigned hull symbol AG-2, that was assigned to the USS Lebanon. This redirect is not much different than a redirect for 'RMS Titanic (PT-109)'. It conflates two vessels that should not be conflated. Cheers! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:24, 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.

Sterling airlines goes bankrupt[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 11:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect, delete. Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This was created as an article in 2008, but redirected the same day. The article was written like a news article, and feels like a copyright violation, but if it is I've not been able to find the source. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright violation. Copied from https://www.thelocal.se/20081029/15278/ I could have tagged this as a CSD, but it's time for this RfD to be closed anyway. Jay 07:02, 31 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.

Marathon RED[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Marathon RED

Wikipedia:PH[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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to retarget this redirect from Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, consistent with existing redirects of WP:CA for WikiProject Canada, WP:JP for WikiProject Japan, and WP:ID for WikiProject Indonesia. Sanglahi86 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We should always be very cautious when changing shortcut redirects as there is a very high chance of causing confusion (or worse) through changing the apparent meaning in old links, discussions (including unlinked uses) and edit summaries. Looking at the links, there aren't that many, but around two thirds of them are intended to mean Wikipedia:Page history (almost all of them though are years old) and all but one of the rest clearly mean the current target (the context of the sole exception means I don't know what was intended). Page view stats show it's used a bit, but those page views don't correlate with views of the photography project or the Philippines project, so with no evidence that anybody is using this expecting to find the Philippines changing it to that is a bad idea. I'm open to retargetting to Wikipedia:Page history if anyone thinks that would be a benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's a hatnote pointing to the Tambayan page in the current target so I don't mind. Also I think there's no rule about these redirects that states that they must point to a country or state's Wikiproject. For example, WP:PA points to Wikipedia:No personal attacks rather than WikiProject Pennsylvania or the currently inactive WP:PANAMA. --Lenticel (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just reminded me of a similar discussion - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Wikipedia:EE where I wrote: Based on a quick check of about 35 country codes I found 9 go to the WikiProject about the relevant country (WP:AU, WP:CA, WP:FR, WP:GR, WP:IE, WP:JP, WP:MX, WP:NZ and WP:UK), 2 go to noticeboards for topics related to the country (WP:IN, WP:PK), three are disambigs (WP:NO, WP:PT and WP:SA) and the rest go to unrelated topics (WP:AE, WP:AT, WP:BE, WP:DE, WP:EG, WP:ES, WP:FI, WP:GA, WP:IL, WP:IQ, WP:IT, WP:LT, WP:LV, WP:PH, WP:RS, WP:RU, WP:SE, WP:SK, WP:SL, WP:UA and WP:US). Thus it is more likely that a country code will not take you to the WikiProject about that country - shortcuts are basically taken on a first come first served basis with no use automatically having priority over any other. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on a suggested target to Wikipedia:Page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 18:00, 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.

Xiguit District[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. Nominator seems to have retracted their rationales as mistaken, and nobody else supported deletion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another completely made up Mongolian name, this time for Shiguai District (see #Ud District below). The actual transliteration of the Mongolian name is Siɣuyitu. Theknightwho (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait to see if pageviews drop off, per my !vote re Ud District. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 17:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was wrong. The Mongolian ᠰᠢᠭᠤᠶᠢᠲᠤ is given the Cyrillic form Шугуйт ("thicket") in the Mongol Toli (National Mongolian Dictionary). Ш (Mongolian Cyrillic) and X (Chinese Mongolian Roman) always represent the Mongolian s, but the Chinese Romanisation system is slightly more faithful to the Mongolian script Siɣuyitu, and resolves to Xiguit, whereas the Mongolian Шугуйт is closer to the actual pronunciation. Theknightwho (talk) 23:12, 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.

Ud District[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 withdrawn. Closure requested <permalink> P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wuda District (in Inner Mongolia, China) was moved to Ud District back in 2018 by User:ASDFGH,[1] but that name seems to have been completely made up, and I can't find any uses of it in any source (other than Google Maps, who I'm pretty certain got it from WP). I'm pretty sure it comes from the faulty transliteration of the Mongolian Uda which the same user added to List of administrative divisions of Inner Mongolia until I just corrected it.[2]. The Mongolian ᠤᠳᠠ clearly contains the letter ᠠ ("a"), so this isn't a case of different romanisation systems - it's just that user's mistake, which we shouldn't be perpetuating. Theknightwho (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible misnomer. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striked after correction by nom. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a month or two to see if pageviews drop off. With 2,000 views in the years that it was at this title, there may be reliance by off-site backlinks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, can I withdraw this? Having looked into Mongolian in a lot more detail since I listed this, it seems that Ud is an accurate Romanisation. The leading Mongolian dictionary lists ᠤᠳᠠ ("willow", which is what the district was named for) with the Cyrillic form Уд, because Mongolian usually drops the final "a", even though it's retained in the traditional Mongolian script.
    In other words, I was wrong! If you need confirmation, just listen to the recording of a native speaker in the Mongolian dictionary linked. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 17:53, 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.

Template:Db-t3/date[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 06:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this redirect technically meets the WP:G8 criteria (as it is a subpage of a deleted template), I prefer to see it being discussed at RfD. The target template has nothing to do with Template:Db-t3, which was deleted at the end of 2020 as CSD T3 has been repealed. So, the redirect should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V (from 2008) suggests that the code may be useful in other circumstances, but even if no other templates currently use that code (a) I don't know whether that will still be true all these years later, and (b) undeletion for the purposes of reviewing the code is something most admins will be happy to do. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 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.

Wikipedia:THEDAYWIKIPEDIATURNSINTO4CHAN[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 06:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding my April Fools' participation and my general support for the Day, this low-traffic joke redirect dating from April Fools' 2011 should be deleted for its excessive length. Deletion would not break any pages - even the 2011 April Fools' page - as it is unlinked to. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:00, 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.

2022 European heat wave (disambiguation)[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G14. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:28, 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.

Well-poised[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Well-poised

Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE[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 Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes. N.b. the target already disambiguated towards the other usage with a hatnote. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes, as with WP:NAMECHANGES. I briefly looked at a lot of the incoming links, and most of them seemed to be typos for the NAMECHANGES redirect. No clear reason why one would be the primary topic or intended retargeting for "name change", and another for "name changes". QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A breakup of incoming links per namespace/area is as follows: Talk:24, Talk archives:6, User talk:16, User talk archives:7, WP archives:7, WP talk:1, WP talk archives:2
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate Seems that there's an even split, with the user talk links referring to username changes while talk links are about article name changes. There is no primary topic. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've drafted a dab. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:13, 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.

District of Colombia[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. The general feeling seems to be that "district of Colombia", in the context of the current target, is grammatically correct, and that as a correct sense it should trump the misspelled sense in which the term could be used to refer to D.C. Per Jay, I will also retarget District of colombia as a matter of common sense. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps retarget to Washington, D.C. (maybe with a hatnote) as R from misspelling? The current target is technically more "correct", but it's very obscure and most people who type this in would presumably be looking for Washington DC. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep with a hatnote or retarget to District of Columbia (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:38, 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.

Joseph-Joseph Lagrange[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 04:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After conferring with the creator of the redirect and the writer of the article on Marie-Joseph Lagrange, I have come to the conclusion that the redirect was created as a result of a typographical error on the said article and that the name in the redirect does not, in fact, refer to Fr. Lagrange; therefore, the redirect can safely be deleted. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_23&oldid=1102034382"