Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2022.

Errant[edit]

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

Shagos[edit]

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

John Nash (Mathematician)[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 12:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RCAPS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is not implausible that a user would create a link in another article to this redirect, with its incorrectly capitalized initial M. We all know that incorrect capitalizations by Wikipedia editors are a problem that is always with us. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mathematician" is not a proper noun. It is not a plausible redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the fact that this redirect is linked three times from mainspace, once from a talk page, and three times from user pages or talk pages speaks to the fact that this is not an "implausible, unnatural, or novel" capitalization. Proper noun or not, it is not necessarily obvious to inexperienced users that the first word of a "disambiguation phrase" shouldn't be capitalized the same way the first word of an article title typically is. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Someone might hold the ⇧ Shift key for too long and this redirect'll still get people to their destination. I don't see any reason for deletion. Regards, SONIC678 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible miscapitalization. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DC4:3CCA:A33F:14A1 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very likely that someone would type this in or link to it. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it very likely when John Nash (mathematician) also exists? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and evidently an error that occurs from time to time (see Special:WhatLinksHere/John Nash (Mathematician)). Glades12 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close per WP:SNOW. FAdesdae378 20:44, 30 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.

Elifism[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 08:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, results on Google Scholar all appear to either be typos of "elitism" or references to Elif Shafak, who does not appear to be associated with antinatalism. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's really difficult to search for because every search engine in existence is absolutely convinced you meant "elitism" and you have to do all kinds of tricks to get it to properly search for "efilism." It appears in some Indian periodicals. E.g. "It Is Immoral To Have Children. Here’s Why" in The Hindu Business Line (July 2017), referenced here, or in online discussions, here's a Quora discussion and here's a subreddit. I think there is technically a difference between them? Like, antinatalism is in relation with just human life, and efilism is meant to apply more broadly to all sentient life? Thus the name ("life" backwards). But I thought I might as well just try to get it to point somewhere for now.
...wait.... squints eyes
We're just talking about the eLIFism redirect, not the eFILism redirect, aren't we? Yeah, that's a typo/dyslexia on my part, the redirect should come from eFILism, sorry. Fephisto (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go ahead and delete, this was dyslexia on my part. Fephisto (talk) 20:28, 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.

Fire of knowledge[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. There was a suggestion that it could be disambiguated, but no targets were suggested, and others did not find them. Jay 08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is solely linked on articles about Chinese philosophy and redirects to a Christian concept. Namewise it seems like a completely different concept from Logos and probably should be its own article if it exists in the first place Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to TNT and start over, either retargeted somewhere more appropriate or turned into an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Seems that there are a few plausible targets for this redirect. Logos is definitely not one of them though. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DC4:3CCA:A33F:14A1 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent connection between the redirect and its target. I'm not sure what we would DAB this to either. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above, and let the search engine handle this. Deletion seems the correct way to go since there's no appropriate target. CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 1 August 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:NETHERLANDS[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 and redirected Wikipedia:Netherlands, which was previously a dab, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Netherlands is currently a disambiguation page, and these differ only in capitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:45, 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.

Rambut[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 23:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Indonesian Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 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.

Whip Gate - Incidents During the Biden Administration[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 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This read to me like a WP:NPOV violation. It sounds like this was a direct action of the Biden Administration, which is not accurate. According to the article, Biden was "deeply troubled about it." That, combined with the poor formatting, recommends me to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a plausible search or link term. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the nom I don't get any NPOV vibes from this, I read it as referring to the subset of "Whip Gate" incidents which occurred during Biden's administration. However reading the target article (which incidentally has been moved to 2021 Haitian migrant whip controversy) the scandal occurred entirely in a single month during which Biden was the only president. It's not a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 07:00, 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.

Template:Onvaccation[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 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely typo for such a common word most people learn in their first year of English class. Nothing links here. The page has virtually no views since its creation and no page history except for my failed speedy nomination. I don't see a point why this should stay. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What people learn in their first year of English class is generally irrelevant since this is not a prerequisite to reading the English Wikipedia. However, since this spelling appears to be completely unlikely and vastly different from the actual word (Onvaccation does not exist in mainspace either), I agree this should be deleted. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just wanted to make a point saying that it's very unlikely, but on second thought some people mistake there, their and they're all the time. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, likely typo / different (unspaced) convention for {{On vacation}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, {{Onvacation}} exists too. Why did I read the target as "vaccination"? Vaccation still seems rather unlikely to me, so consider my previous vote a weak delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 13:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's two errors here which makes it unlikely --Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and implausible. {{On vaccation}}, {{Vaccation}} and Vaccation all don't exist. I don't see any reason this should either. It's not impossible this gets confused for vaccination either (I know I got confused like that). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to containing both an error in spacing and an error in spelling, resulting in a fairly implausible combination. (That said, googling "vaccation" shows that the misspelling by itself is not actually all that rare). AddWittyNameHere 05:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that {{Onvacation}} exists and is a plausible shortcut in my opinion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd personally consider that one plausible as well. AddWittyNameHere 22:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per plausibility concerns raised above. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:00, 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.

Mother of Pride[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 02:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "Mother of Pride" has been removed from the Brenda Howard article because of lack of reliable sourcing. See Brenda Howard Talk page for more info. The redirect was added by Brenda Howard's partner. I believe this should be deleted under reason 4 - self-promotion or reason 8 - novel or obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target Duke9000 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I agree that the term is not well sourced enough to be in the article itself, but a redirect needn't be well sourced, merely useful. Can we demonstrate that the term is used by some people? Yes, two blogs and a magazine article apparently do so, according to what I skimmed on the talk page. Is the target ambiguous? It doesn't seem that anyone else is attempting to claim the title, so it looks unambiguous to me. I think that's enough for a redirect, though not actual article inclusion. That said, I'm certainly open to arguments otherwise, and I don't feel strongly about keeping the redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's no mention in the article then it's confusing, and not helpful or useful, to redirect there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is currently no mention of this term in the article, but she is referred to by this name in multiple other articles. It was formerly in this article but removed in August last year, with detailed explanation on the talk page (which basically says there are no sources that don't originate with the Wikipedia article). The user who added it objected in June this year, but a third editor agreed with the first. Given the sourced mentions in multiple other articles, but claims of citogenesis, I think it would be useful to have a better-attended discussion about the term so I will flag it up to the LGBT project. Meanwhile, I've added The Mother of Pride (a redirect to the same target) to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- I'd say the reasoning of Fieari is sound and I see no harm in either of these redirects being kept. Historyday01 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was a suggestion at the LGBT project of adding back the mention at the target, but it did not happen and the discussion has been stalled since July 18.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - An interesting case. Her claim to this title certainly appears dubious, but as even that highly critical letter points out, it has nonetheless become a "commonly used descriptive phrase" for her. Given the lack of other claimants, that seems like enough that we can fairly confidently say that anyone searching that term would be looking for her article. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:15, 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.

Little Punjab[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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Punjab" is too ambiguous, and can refer to any Punjabi diaspora community. For instance, a quick Google News search shows that this term is also applied to Southall, another place where many Punjabis settled. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus for disambiguating has been reached, a draft DAB hasn't been created yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify - although I doubt any disambiguation page for this term will ever be exhaustive. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:26, 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.

Animal Parade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 6#Animal Parade

Suicide Six[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Suicide Six

Vietnamese in China[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 Vietnamesee language in China, retarget/refine the other two to Overseas Vietnamese#China. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same target. I think that Overseas Vietnamese, with the current hatnote to Gin people, is the most appropriate target. The first could also potentially be deleted for being an unusual typo. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Overseas Vietnamese has only a single sentence on China, which is essentially just a link to Gin people, I would prefer Gin people as the target. If not that, then as a secondary preference, Overseas Vietnamese#China. Furius (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sense based on Google Scholar results is that we are undercovering Vietnamese people in China on Overseas Vietnamese, as most results for the term there are for modern immigrants, not Gin people. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 07:02, 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.

Hell (forum)[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 11:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section that this redirects to does not mention the subject. Only two content pages contains a link to this redirect; neither defines the subject. ZFT (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Source that I found after a quick google search. Could be notable, but I can't see more than a stub existing for now. Anarchyte (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. May be worth an article, but until one exists, redirecting to a list it does not appear on is not useful. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:24, 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.

The security[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 11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "the" is unnecessary. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common search term, as evidenced by non-negligible pageviews. I'd think that this redirect should target security guard as a more accurate representation of what is thought of when this is mentioned. J947 † edits 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds ungrammatical. Likely it would just clutter up Cirrus Search and Visual Editor suggestions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to security guard per J947. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we actually know what a user would be looking for if they entered this as a search term (e.g. perhaps they were thinking of The Security Service or Security (finance), which is the only context where one regularly talks about "a security" or "the security"), so it's probably best just not to have the redirect. Failing that, send them to Security (disambiguation). Furius (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As having no apparent obvious target, nor one for disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:56, 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.

Iron Golem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 1#Iron Golem

The King Banishes the Letter 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. Jay 07:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This story on Sesame Street Stories used to have an article from Se_tember 2006 to July 29 the next year, but it wasn't mentioned on the target _age at the times it was created or turned into a redirect _er WP:N. Currently, it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wiki_edia, and the number of _ageviews it's been getting since July 2015 have been declining over the years. We may need to banish this one just like King _eter the _ersnickety did with the letter _ in his story, but I'm o_en to being swayed otherwise if there's a more a__ro_riate course of action to be taken. Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete memorable segment from the classic era, but unlikely to be a search term or be linked to. _S, non, you missed one in "per". oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I must've missed it. Regards, SONIC678 19:00, 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.

Rosewood (color)[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 Shades of red#Rosewood. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned in Shades of rose. The template Template:Shades of pink seems to hint this subject belongs on Shades of pink, but the subject of this redirect is not there either. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 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.

Bazaar (color)[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 07:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned in Shades of rose. Apparently, though it kind of looks like a purple, it's a dull shade of red. Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_24&oldid=1102774307"