Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2022.

Rôle-playing video game[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) CycloneYoris talk! 00:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accent is improbable, I can't find it used anywhere else but an article (The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga) created by the same person who made the redirect, and it has one pageview in the last 30 days. CLYDEFRANKLIN 23:02, 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.

Exterminate All the Brutes (2021 film)[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) CycloneYoris talk! 00:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't a film, but a miniseries on a TV channel. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now per WP:RFD#KEEP, item four. The article was at this title from April 2021 until today, and it has lots of incoming links. We'll be able to better evaluate its utility after some time has passed and we can see how much traffic it's still receiving. - Eureka Lott 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per EurekaLott. This is too old and has far too many incoming links, regardless of its status as an incorrect title. Deleting this would require us to fix 99 pages in mainspace alone, and I can't imagine how many links would be broken on other sites. Glades12 (talk) 18:37, 27 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:CALPIH[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 02:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect from typo. The last view was 6 months ago, and there are no incoming links to this redirect. FAdesdae378 21:57, 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.

N9NE Steakhouse Las Vegs[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 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: this is obviously a typo of limited value and low visibility. I've moved the original (to "N9NE Steakhouse Las Vegas"), but the original stuck around for quite a while, so it seems better to file here than for speedy deletion. Mockingbus (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have put the template on the redirect. Courtesy ping: Mockingbus, please follow the listing instructions, as that is a very important step. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry! I'd put in a deletion template in it before and that got removed; I must have gotten confused in the shuffle when I brought it over here. --Mockingbus (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full week since the template was placed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Implausible Not particularly common typo TartarTorte 19:07, 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.

X̱[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 Voiceless velar fricative. signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned at target. Redirect to Saanich dialect or Squamish language, where it is mentioned, or create a new article for it. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create an article about the character, akin to our other diacritic letter articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Voiceless velar fricative. This mentions the sound represented by this symbol, a voiceless post-velar/pre-uvular fricative, and the glyph is based on the IPA symbol ⟨x⟩. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 21 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 18:17, 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.

Cell tropism[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. Retargetting to Endothelial cell tropism based on majority count. There is both opposition and support for Endothelial cell tropism, and this can be hashed out at an appropriate talk page, or a re-nomination is inevitable. Jay 02:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created as an unsourced stub of 2 sentences in 2008, this was then promptly redirected. The trouble is, the target is a about a different sense of the word "tropism". The redirect should be deleted to encourage the creation of an article in the same category as Host tropism and Tissue tropism. – Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Endothelial cell tropism for now. It probably doesn't capture all uses of the term, and a WP:BCA is probably warranted, but the article repeatedly uses the term "cell tropism" so seems like an adequate target for now. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Host tropism or tissue tropism. Google Scholar search of "Cell tropism" gives mostly viral cell tropism to the target host or tissue or cell type - [1]]. Host tropism is the broader concept, tissue tropism covers the great majority of cases, but both more appropriate than the more limited case of Endothelial cell tropism. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for a firmer consensus. Participants favor retargeting thus far, but as yet do not agree on a single target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 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.

Yellen[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 move Yellen (surname) to Yellen. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. This could also be a typo for yelling, but it also might be fine at its current target. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Janet Yellen the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Yellen (surname) to Yellen per above comments. As Furius notes, Janet Yellen is only the primary topic at this moment in time, which is subject to change. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. Janet Yellen is the primary topic. No one else even comes close in page views! -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the surname article back to the primary title (reversing the bold move of 2 years ago). Article views show popularity, but they aren't a reliable indicator of usage; for actual usage you'd need to compare the hits for the redirect with the hatnote clickthroughs to the surname article [2] [3], and these very strongly suggest absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 19 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 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the surname article back to the primary title per Uanfala and others. MB 05:45, 26 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.

USS Bushnell (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. Jay 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. This is the same issue as with the RfD for USS Sumner (AG-2) on July 23. Cheers! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:32, 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.

That escalated quickly[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#That escalated quickly

Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest[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 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These countries or territories were included on a list of participants for an event and did not follow through with that participation. The articles for the countries that did participate were recently deleted. This is largely a housekeeping request since those other articles were deleted, not redirected. It is extremely unlikely that someone would need to search for an article about a country or territory that did not do something, especially when the activity itself struggles to meet notability requirements in general. The target of these redirects also does not discuss their relevance/importance. Grk1011 (talk) 14:08, 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.

Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 1#Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism

Just dance the movie[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 Just Dance (video game series)#Film. Jay 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect deleted because it has been unedited for so long, and there is no such thing as a Just Dance movie. 209.221.91.116 (talk) 14:02, 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.

Wikipedia:TI[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:Template index. As an aside, I will reïterate my impression that RfDs like this are not worth the amount of editor time they consume. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to redirect the page to the Wikipedia:Template index, as I don't understand why this is short for Contents/Categories. Q28 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it originally pointed to Wikipedia:Topical index. but has been moved around a bit to avoid double redirects, hence landing at a name that doesnt quite fit the 'TI', but it's old enough I daresay keep. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is plausible and can occur. Castncoot (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot: Could you please elaborate? I don't understand why you think this redirect is plausible and how it can occur? CycloneYoris talk! 13:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There are too many plausible meanings for a two-letter combination. BD2412 T 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. We should always be very conservative with shortcut redirects due to the high potential for confusion and harm from changing meanings of old discussions, links and unlinked uses. However in this case there is exactly one actual use (not mention) of this redirect and while I don't know what it is referring to, the current target doesn't make sense: In 2016, Pluto2012 wrote at Talk:Mount Zion#The poor state of this article Crock81 adds a lot of WP:TI, which lack reliable sources.. Disambiguating shortcuts makes them useless, so should only be used when there are multiple targets that people equally expect to be at the shortcut, which is not the case here. The current target is not logical, unlike the proposed target, so it is the latter that is more likely to get uses. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Template index, the only page provided that would naturally abbreviate this way. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for the topical index (ie. TOC) and the template index; and per BD2412 -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to template index or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a shortcut from 2004, has negligible pageviews, and used as a link exactly once. And in the discussion it was used on Crock81, he responded with I also don't care to look up what TI stands for. You can try speaking English.! Between the two suggested targets, WP:Topical index is by itself a redirect created in 2001, was part of the new user Welcome template, but has no pageviews except for a spike last month. It redirects to WP:Editor's index to Wikipedia which despite good page views would not be an obvious abbreviation expansion of TI. WP:Template index on the other hand is popular and had upto 2000 views on a single day last month. Retarget to WP:Template index per nom and others, and monitor for a few months on its adapatability. Jay 07:53, 3 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.

List of crystals[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 per G7. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 06:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sensible redirect, because most crystals are not gemstones, and not all gemstones are crystals. We didn't need a redirect for this before, and don't now. If someone wants to create a list article for crystals they are welcome to do so, but this redirect is pointless and should be deleted. Srleffler (talk) 03:01, 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.

Rocktober[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 on Rocktober, delete Roctober. The arguments presented in favor of deleting Rocktober all apply to Roctober, but there has been no rebuttal to the latter's deletion whereas there isn't a clear consensus on the former after two relists. signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These seems like an oddly specific target for a word that is used rather generically, as evidenced by numerous other uses in the encyclopedia. Roctober (with no "k") points to October. I would retarget this, or disambiguate in some way. BD2412 T 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search (48 other entries). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I have not proposed the deletion of this title. I do not share User:Shhhnotsoloud's confidence in the utility of the Search function. BD2412 T 17:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate both the Rocktober and Roctober redirects, as there appears to be no clear primary topic for either term. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this looks to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC after my review. After reviewing the nominator's evidence, most other usage seemed to be either WP:PTM or too minor for disambiguation. What other uses did you have in mind? In fact, I would also retarget Roctober to 2007 Colorado Rockies season, it seems to be an alternate spelling (eg: [4] [5] [6]) -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am very confident that the generic reference to October, at least, is primary over the baseball season. BD2412 T 23:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What reference? The October article does not mention Roc(k)ober. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you Google "Rocktober" you will see tons and tons of rock concerts, other music events, even rock climbing events, happening in October (mixed in with some hits for the Colorado Rockies season, spurred by Wikipedia's use of the term). BD2412 T 04:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...but nothing else that has a Wikipedia article, correct? -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Roctober which is also being discussed by participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 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_25&oldid=1138583371"