Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2022.

Federal Republic of Lostisland[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 Matthew Island and Hunter Island#Hunter Island. Jay 06:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Lostisland" nor federal republics of any kind are mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Tamzin, where this micro nation is mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 4 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.

Template:R ih[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 23:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The transclusions of this redirect seem to be correct, but as a search term, this redirect is rather vague and unclear what it is supposed to represent. For this reason, it may be best to bypass all the transclusions of this redirect and transclude its target instead, then delete the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 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.

Auburn (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current setup of these redirects seems to be a WP:SURPRISE. Most other "color name (color)" redirects target a section in a respective "Shades of whatever color" article where the subject of the redirect is identified and mentioned. (For example, Atomic tangerine targets Shades of orange#Atomic tangerine.) It seems as though the subject of these redirects is a valid color that is either a shade of red or a shade of brown, but the color doesn't seem to be mentioned on those articles. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think this has come about because Auburn (color) was the original title of Auburn hair and moved in 2008. I'm not sure that auburn is used in any other context other than hair colour. If so, then it is fine as it is. Note that blond and brunette are treated similarly (ie, as a hair colour rather than a colour per se). SpinningSpark 14:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blond redirecting to Blond hair and Brunette redirecting to Brown hair make sense since I don't believe those terms have ever been used to describe a color other than hair color. In regards to "auburn" though, this color has apparently been identified/described as an actually color: in other words, there is a non-hair paint color described as "auburn". Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, it is the only topic – we currently don't have any other meanings in the encyclopaedia, so there is not even a need for disambiguation. By the way, blond is commonly the description of a beer from its colour, and this book talks about brunette as a skin colour, so your statement is not true. SpinningSpark 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Maybe those two redirects need discussion in the future as well. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per my WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument above.SpinningSpark 10:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as the only other content about the colour we have is the swatch on Template:Shades of brown. We should have content on the colour though as it is used for other things too, it's used to describe the colour of red foxes for example [1][2][3]. Searching I also found examples of various fabrics and wood. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 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.

Asparagus (color)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Asparagus (color)

Anti-globalization[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 00:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization have now evolved into much wider scope than content of the target article.

The target article, anti-globalization movement, currently mainly describe leftists/socialists who oppost the globalized impact of multinational cooperation and the spread of capitalism.

However, in the past decade or so, a new form of anti-globalization have arisen across the world, marked by leaders like Donald Trump and Le Pen, and political parties like UKIP and AfD.

The target article anti-globalization movement spent only 4 sentences describing this, in a short section of #Nationalist opposition against globalization, and two of the four lines, aka half of it, are to compare and contrast these nationalist activies from anticapitalist movements that are the theme of the article anti-globalization movement.

In my opinion, from the perspective of the entire Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, this ratio of coverage for nationalist anti-globalization compared to socialist anti-globalization are obviously undue, with even some local activities being listed with more details than nationalist anti globalization caused political events that have global and lasting influence. However, the current page of anti-globalization movement is a relatively self-contained page that describe the anticapitalist movement itself, and thus I think it would be bad idea to rewritten entirely to give due weight to the rise of nationalist anti-globalization in the 21st century, instead it could be a better idea to transform the page currently titled anti-globalization into either an article or a disambiation page, pointing to another new page of yet to be decided title that write about nationalist anti-globalization in addition to the anticapitalist anti-globalization movement. The Britiannica article on anti-globalization: [4] discussed the differences and common parts between capitalist anti-globalization movement and nationalist anti-globalization movement, which make me think both courses of actions are possible, either converting the page currently acting as redirect (anti-globalization) into a disambiguation page pointing to separate capitalist/nationalist anti-globalization page, or turn it into a summary page that summarize feature of both sides. But I have not determined which is the best course of action and thus I would like other editors provide some inputs on it.

New antisemitism#Anti-globalization movement provide a bit more relevant content that can be used to establish a new page, no matter it is to be a page for all sort of anti-globalization, or for a new page dedicated to nationalist anti-globalization that the anti-globalization page will become a disambiguation page linking to.

Disclosure: The reason I become aware of this situation was because my previous edit about anti-globalization stance of certain far right part in an Asian country got rolled back by another editor, @Helper201:, who stated that anti-globalization page on Wikipedia is describing a movement, and after more in-depth investigation, I found that it is indeed true that the article of anti-globalization on English Wikipedia mainly describe the anticapitalist movement arising in the West since roughly around Vietnam War, and pay little to no attention to the rise of far-right anti-globalization happening across the world since 2010s, and that due to the existing redirect target being a self-contained complete description of what it is describing, it occurs to me that there exists a need to create a new article to describe the phenomenon. C933103 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now since it seems the target is the best existent subject we have currently on Wikipedia. I don't think WP:REDLINK applies here since readers look up that term, and really should be directed to something with it other than the search results. However, I have no objection to the redirect being replaced by an article, as long as the redirect is not deleted in the interim. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about the other possible action of changing it into a disambiguation page? C933103 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the situation and ... as long as this title never becomes a WP:REDLINK, I have no further opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a disambiguation page. The current target is problematic on its own, and clearly a misnomer. Louis Waweru  Talk  10:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, currently best target. —Kusma (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Steel1943 ~ carpathianflorist 15:33, 28 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:OGAE Video 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 23:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These navbox templates have been redirected for the last 6 years. They don't appear to have any transclusions under their former unmerged names. Mainly a cleanup request. Grk1011 (talk) 18:57, 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.

Abe Books.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Abe Books.com

The Google URL prefixed including the HTTP protocol[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#The Google URL prefixed including the HTTP protocol

Single day events[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 00:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete common term which just means what it says. It's used about all sorts of events. I didn't see any cycling in the first 50 Google hits. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Far too ambiguous of a search term, and not feasible as a disambiguation page either. Glades12 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful and having no plausible targets. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and since the phrase is incredibly ambiguous. (For one, Holiday comes to mind.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem here isn't lack of plausible targets, it's far too many plausible targets. It's so generic that disambiguation that is both practical and useful is impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 28 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.

Liberal international order[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 Who we are, delete rest. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful search terms, the first three don't clearly refer to the LIO even for regions that are unequivocally part of it, and of course Wikipedia is a global project and includes editors and readers from parts of the world that are not part of the LIO or would not see it as theirs (or necessarily democratic). Search results mostly return information about a US NGO focused on the US's internal democratic culture and not the LIO. Meanwhile, the StarveForUkraine ones are clearly not helfpul and I probably would have R3 deleted them if they appeared on their own, but given that they're clearly part of this set of redirects I decided it would make more sense just to group-RfD them. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The first three are hopelessly ambiguous and unlikely search terms: they can refer to literally any views a thinking being holds, from liberal democracy to totalitarianism, anarchism, syndicalism and who knows what else. The latter two are just slogans for certain movements, not necessarily a part of liberalism nor the international order as it stands today. I can't find any web results for the Ukraine-related slogans, so they're certainly not notable either. Glades12 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget Who we are to Who We Are. Much more reasonable target, for case-sensitivity reasons. Others should still be deleted unless someone can find better targets. Glades12 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget who we are to the Who We Are disambiguation page as a {{r from miscapitalization}}. - Eureka Lott 02:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Glades12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our democracy and Our values, vague redirects. Redirect Who we are to Who We Are (disambiguation). The two Starve for Ukraine redirects should also be deleted. AKK700 20:18, 28 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.

Germans love to eat[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 WP:CSD G3. It's clear from the creating editor's history that this redirect was not intended to be constructive SpinningSpark 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 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.

Production of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars[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 under the G7 criterion (author requests deletion in good faith). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Draft talk:Production of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars#Is this needed, no evidence of them being produced together for now so redirect in mainspace is misleading Indagate (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete sepculation that these are produced together. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion. Far too early to know if they will be produced together. Trailblazer101 (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This redirect was created because of the draft, which has been moved to its creator's sandbox. No longer necessary, and purely speculative in nature. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, as the original creator, please delete now that the related draft has moved. -- Zoo (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
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.

Sproftacchel[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. Jay 06:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in good faith but I am pretty sure that "Sproftacchel" is a made-up word that was added to Photo stand-in by a vandal. I have found no evidence for the word ever being used before it was added in 2021. See the Photo stand-in talk page for details. It has no (non-trivial) edit history and nothing links to it. I believe it should be deleted so it won't mislead users who search for "Sproftacchel". Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: From my research the nominator is almost assuredly correct that this is cytogenesis; however, with the length of time that "sproftacchel" was on wikipedia, there have been a number of people who use that term without other explanation. While it should be removed from the page; I think keeping the redirect could be helpful for navigation/information. It's a weird scenario. TartarTorte 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, would it be better to retarget it to the talk page section? I think keeping it like it is implicitly endorses the word as a valid synonym. It might be different if the article had a section about the citogenesis, but I don't know if it's notable enough for that. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think a talk page redirect could be worthwhile; having said that, unfortunately, cross-name redirects to talk are banned under WP:R3, so that probably wouldn't go well with closer. I think that having the redirect without having anything in the article isn't necessarily an endorsement. I just hesitate to call for deletion when there are people now using the term even if it is a neologism. TartarTorte 18:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I had already posted a comment on Talk:Photo stand-in. I agree with TartarTorte. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:25, 5 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 18:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if there are enough uses to support a Wiktionary entry (I've not looked) then a soft redirect there could be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another try. There is no Wiktionary entry yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Generally, the problem with citogenesis is that the information it provides is wrong. But in this case, we don't care if the word is "right" or "wrong", because there is no such thing as right or wrong. Rather, it is attested, and so it is a valid search term even if it originated as a joke on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping a redirect to a page that does not use the term is a terrible idea. That just confuses the user, and furthermore, is directly contrary to WP:R#PLA. Either mention it in the article or else delete it. A soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry is a possible solution, but I don't think that this meets even Wiktionary's fairly minimal requirements for neologisms (three independent, durably archived usages spread over at least a year last time I looked). So if we can't even meet that, and don't want to put it in the article, then delete. It has no lasting notability now, and we don't know whether it will in the future. SpinningSpark 14:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This does look like a word made up by Wikipedians, but enough sources have picked it up from us (no wonder citogenesis is such a problem!) to make it a plausible search term. The target article mentions this with good sourcing now, so the redirect is no longer likely to confuse anyone.
I oppose redirecting to Wiktionary, since deferring readers to another site is a worse option overall than letting them stay here and read about the subject. My final point especially applies to any print readers; for them, switching between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is cumbersome at best. Glades12 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would play this game if I were in spy school, or part of a network of pranksters. Might deserve a category to track these if it's a stay. It's interesting if it's not just the result of gamification. A category might entice pranksters, and still, I am curious to know if there are others like this but wouldn't know how to look. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but this kind of event is called citogenesis. We even have an updated list of known cases. Glades12 (talk) 14:36, 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.

Ivy Road[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Ivy Road

Gibraltar Football League[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 procedural close. Whle RfDs do sometimes result in pagemoves, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and sometimes what starts as a discussion about redirecting becomes one about moving, this discussion was from the beginning about moving Gibraltar National League. That is a matter for RM, especially given the lack of strong consensus below. Courtesy ping @VampireKilla. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Gibraltar National League has now rebranded as the Gibraltar Football League so the article should no longer redirect to the defunct Premier Division - instead, the Gibraltar National League page should be moved to the Gibraltar Football League. VampireKilla (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per observation made by A7V2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems fairly obvious to me that Gibraltar National League should be moved to Gibraltar Football League. The lead of that article bolds "Gibraltar Football League" at the start of the first sentence as if that were actually the title of the aricle. Gibraltar Premier Division can be taken care of with a hatnote, although as others have pointed out, that article does not actually say this was the original name. SpinningSpark 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as this is a clusterfuck thanks to nominator a) not nominating for RFD properly and b) using RFD rather than RM. GiantSnowman 20:54, 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.

Craft Bond[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 3#Craft Bond

Army green[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 3#Army green

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_27&oldid=1138583381"