Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2022.

Closed operator[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 13#Closed operator

Blackcomb (operating system)[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 Windows 7#Development history. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blackcomb" is not the codename for Windows 7 (this is mentioned in the page, btw), meaning the redirect is inaccurate. Additionally, the user creating it was blocked for creating vandalistic redirects. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Windows 7#Development history. This is obviously a likely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 6 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.

Paris, France/Musees/Louvre[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 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No clear purpose. Unlikely search term. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is an unlikely search term. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely. Subpages in mainspace have been gone since forever. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 8 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.

Mesablanca[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 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the name of a track in both SSX Tricky and in SSX (2000 video game). It also isn't mentioned in the article. Iffy★Chat -- 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not discussed at target and averages only about 100 pageviews a year since 2016. It's not a particularly likely search term and anyone looking for information on the track will only be disappointed. There is a nice fandom article on it. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful due to unresolvable ambiguity. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:49, 8 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.

Simoqî[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b., the pre-existing articles at these titles were created by a sockpuppet of an editor CU-blocked several years ago, so they qualify for G5 speedy deletion and there is no need to restore the content. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 6 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.

World Open Chinese Studies Journal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 13#World Open Chinese Studies Journal

American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in an Episode Episode of a One-Hour Television Series – Commercial[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 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created at this title with a duplicate "Episode" in the title. It was moved 3 days after creation, so there isn't a huge concern about external links and there are almost no wiki-links. TartarTorte 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to preserve. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom. I'm not sure people would search search for this duplicate duplicate in the title, as it doesn't appear to be correct. Regards regards, SONIC678 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely to ever be typed (given how long this name is). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:42, 8 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 Mahers[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 Mahers. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally a redirect to Middle east respiratory syndrome; currently a double redirect. This was very recently made an article via translation from de-wiki about a band; this edit was reverted and remade a redirect due to lack of notability, which I agree with, but then this redirect to MERS doesn't make sense. I don't see the connection between the Mahers and MERS. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Mers people article was once at this title; when it was moved from Mers the redirect was not updated. Mers people now redirects to Mer (community), which was created later; the Mer article mentions Maher as another name. It looks like this is the only use; Mahers redirects to Division No. 1, Subdivision M, Newfoundland and Labrador as it's a place name there. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mahers. The quickly reverted article [1] was about a band that's probably not notable (though there are some sources online, so it's not as open-and-shut as it may seem at first). The German article was created at about the same time and then got quickly deleted [2]. Anyway, as pointed out above, there are two topics with the name on enwiki, and the small Canadian settlement is definitely not the primary topic. I've turned Mahers into a dab page (preferable to redirecting to Maher as there's little overlap between the two sets of entries). The form with the definitive article may be more plausible for the ethnic group, but not definitively so. – Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 7 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.

Bhagavath Singh[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 19:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for speedy deletion to make way for the film article Bhagavath Singh (film), however the redirect creator didn't think it appropriate for the film title to be moved to the title. Bhagat Singh was not known as Bhagavath Singh, and there is no mention at the target, so it is unclear why the redirect exists. Jay (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mention of Bhagavath at Bhagat Singh's article. The creator may have misassumed that the revolutionary's proper name was Bhagavath since Bhagat is a derivative from it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as redirect creator. The nominator and I had a discussion about this at the redirect talk page. To pull out a couple of my points. The target doesn't mention Bhagavath Singh but the film article does. From Bhagavath_Singh_(film)#Release: "The film opened in December 1998 to negative reviews with a critic from Indolink.com stating that the film spoils the freedom fighter Bhagat Singh's name...". I will be honest and say I can't remember why I did create the redirect but it seems plausible that this film in some way biographical and so therefore redirecting to the primary topic makes sense. If someone could find reviews or even just a plot summary that would likely clarify whether it is unrelated or not. Tassedethe (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:28, 6 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.

Female pseudohermaphroditism[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 Pseudohermaphroditism. ✗plicit 03:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

male pseudohermaphrodism redirects to pseudohermaphroditism and this to intersex, why don't both redirect to the same target? — Tazuco 03:15, 6 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.

Getty Museum, J. Paul[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 13#Getty Museum, J. Paul

Template:Redirect si[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 19:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a shortening for "singular", but easily ambiguous: {{R from singular}} or {{R to singular}}? The latter is actually even significantly more common. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't like either the abbreviation or the lack of to/from. One has no transclusions, the other 4, so its hard to make the case that either are used with any regularity. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, and not necessary since the target "R to plural" is short and descriptive. Unless WP:RCATs have a default convention of one of "from" or "to" if not mentioned. Jay (talk) 02:51, 13 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:Wayback[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 by nom. Nom has withdrawn below as this is the wrong venue, and started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Template:Wayback. (non-admin closure) A7V2 (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wayback}} is not nor ever was compatible with {{Webarchive}}. A redirect will create either breakage or unintended results. If instances of {{wayback}} get imported from other wikis or old diffs, the correct action is a red error message [missing template] so they are fixed, not hiding problems behind redirects. A lot of work was done to get rid of {{Wayback}} years ago when {{Webarchive}} was created, we had 100s of thousands, bringing it back from the dead is a bad idea for a couple reasons. GreenC 00:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC Are you sure this discussion is in the right place? {{Wayback}} looks like it's a substitution only wrapper template, rather than a redirect? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh that would explain the weird output when wrapped in the RfD template. I've rolled back the request Special:Diff/1096677605/1096697329 and requesting to Withdraw this RfD. -- GreenC 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 6. -- GreenC 03:27, 6 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:Unencyoclopedic[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 01:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Template:Unencyclopedic; this one also has a typo. Unused. Previously deleted as a template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Template:Unencyoclopedic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous and a whole 0 transclusions. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 23:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking a suitable target; a topic or article text could be considered unencyclopedic for a whole raft of reasons (poor formatting, WP:NOT, etc.). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:28, 10 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_6&oldid=1098047190"