Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


June 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2022.

Faithfully flat[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might also refer to a Faithfully flat morphism. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I think the page should be a disambig page; usually the context tells whether faithfully flat refers to a module one or a morphism one. —- Taku (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 12 June 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.

Miller Genuine Draft (beer)[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 over Miller Genuine Draft. This has the same reader-facing result as result as deletion, but preserves the edit history per oknazevad and Jay's observations. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded and erroneous to have the parenthetical at the end, and Miller Genuine Draft already exists and points to the company article. No articles link to the unnecessarily disambiguated term, either. This redirect was apparently created as a technical error in a failed attempt to give the product its own article (not really notable enough for a separate article). The big problem is that it appears first in a search while the plain title doesn't show up at all despite clearly being an implausible search term in that form as opposed to just "Miller Genuine Draft". oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unneeded disambiguation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was created in 2004 and merged-and-redirected in 2005. The content that was merged was not much, I am not sure of the accreditation required. And I was not able to observe the search problems that the nom was seeing. Jay (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A technical complication, then, that the errant attempt to re-establish a separate article following the merge consisted of moving the redirect without actually changing it from being a redirect, which in turn created a double redirect that was fixed by a bot shortly thereafter. Seems that a reversion of that move and deletion of the redirect with the unneeded disambiguation is the best course of action. That would put the edit history back where it belongs. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 19 June 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.

Settings in Battlestar Galatica[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 DAB Libran, delete rest. To avoid breaking attribution for old versions of Twelve Colonies (itself now a redirect), I will move {{r from merge}}s to Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Twelve Colonies/attribution/. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various planets and/or settings in the Battlestar Galatica universe that are not mentioned in the target article. It seems they all were previously redirects towards the former article Twelve Colonies, but there was consensus to redirect it to Battlestar Galatica per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (2nd nomination). At this point, without mention in the target article, readers attempting to locate specific information about the subjects of these redirects will be left with virtually nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been only one participant, and some entries have not been covered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost all. These are very minor settings, and the proposed targets for some of them don't give enough information to warrant redirects. There's a bit of an WP:XY issue as well: for Gemenon, why Dirty Heads and not Flesh and Bone (Battlestar Galactica), Number Six (Battlestar Galactica), Caprica, Leoben Conoy, or Kara Thrace? Libran is a different situation and I have drafted a name index below the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: trying to understand what is almost all. Is your vote same as LaundryPizza03 which is "Delete all except Libran"? Or did you want to delete only those redirects whose proposed targets don't give enough information? Of which you have mentioned only Gemenon, which isn't even part of the nomination. Jay (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, delete all except for Libran, which should be a name index. As for Gemenon, I was going off of 65.92's list and I have no idea where they got one from. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 12 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 20:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go... since consensus is still slightly unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most (except Libran, which should be a dab page). Most of these started off as very brief articles in 2006 before getting prompty redirected: there's no content to salvage there. The relevant conent in the proposed targets is slim, and there's no inherent reason why these elements of the fictional universe should redirect to the one episode that currently happens to mention them. If there are any readers looking for those topics, then they're probably better served by the search engine: it will throw up whatever pages will have relevant content at the time. – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 30 June 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:Votes for deletion/pure junk[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 07:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this VfD-era redirect because of its unintuitiveness. This redirect only has a link in 2003. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:17, 13 June 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.

United States Senate special election in South Carolina, 1972[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 07:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion, as there was no special senate election in South Carolina held in 1972, only a regularly scheduled one. 2601:241:300:B610:115F:AFE5:B1DA:53F6 (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, as these races did not take place. I did however learn that Bernie Sanders ran for senate in 1972 with the Liberty Union Party in a special election and got 2.2% of the vote, so I did learn something interesting from this. TartarTorte 22:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonexistent. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:34, 13 June 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 highest U.S. counties[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a particular state's counties doesn't make sense, and there's no plausible redirect target Ovinus (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Colorado does not equal the U.S. as a whole. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This redirect has been redirected to List of counties in Colorado#Highest Counties. This is a complete list of the 25 highest counties by mean elevation in the U.S. The fact that 23 of the counties are in the same state is irrelevant. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify using the table that Buaidh linked to. I agree with the above that it does not make sense to have a redirect regarding the entire United States to a single state. It also does not make sense to have a table for the top 25 highest U.S. counties in the list for Colorado, especially when it includes non-Colorado counties. All of that can be resolved by splitting that table to its own page, overwriting this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Buiadh's update until a full list can be fleshed out. -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, except this is a very short list. That is why I left it at the List of counties in Colorado. (I'm old, but listify is not an accepted word.) Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've found numerous errors in this list and so I've deleted it. I've started a new Draft:List of highest mean elevation U.S. counties, but I don't know how long it will take to resolve all the data errors. While county high points are pretty easy to find, county low points are quite difficult to find. I would appreciate any assistance anyone can offer. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Wait until Buaidh listifies (sorry!) Jay (talk) 07:07, 19 June 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.

😕[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 redirect to Wikt:😕. Despite it being noted as officially designating confusion, there is proven a reasonable amount of ambiguity surrounding this, with many delete and retarget voters baffled. There is not enough consensus that this emoji redirect is understandable enough to keep the confusion targeting. However, it seems that the Wiktionary soft redirect may be a helpful step in solving that problem, by at least clarifying the meaning of the redirect. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It seems clear to me that this emoji does not represent confusion but disconfort or being upset. Therefore, the redirect should either a) be retargetted to Comfort as it is the same place where Discomfort leads and also because "uncomfortable" and "discomfort" are in bold in the lede, b) be retargeted to the Wiktionary entry 'upset', or c) be deleted if no good redirect is found. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that "Confused face" is the official Unicode name for this. See [1]. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who gave it this name, but this face does not look confused to me. Emojis (see the table at Emoji#Unicode blocks) seem to redirect to what they represent, not to the name given to them (WP:SURPRISE). Veverve (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just to make sure my comment has a clear !vote associated with it. I'll also repeat what I said in a few other emoji related RfDs - deletion should never be a valid option. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Gonnym said, this is the confused face emoji, and will appear differently depending on a user's platform. Its current target is consistent with how we treat similar emojis.- Eureka Lott 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Confused face" is closest to Confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Delete - I agree with the nomination - on many devices, this makes little sense without further context or explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it's officially known as "confused face" so the current target appears suitable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query. While WP:UCRN is about article titles and not about redirects, I think the spirit of that policy is relevant here. In other words, just as we don't choose article titles based on "official names" of things, we shouldn't redirect emojis based on their "official names" but rather (1) based on how they're actually used, and (2) what's most likely to be of use to the reader. The problem is, I have no idea how this is actually used or what readers who search for emojis on Wikipedia are looking for. @Veverve: when you say the emoji represents discomfort or upset rather than confusion, are you speaking about how the image appears to you or how you've seen it used by others? The latter would be a good case for retargeting, especially if examples can be found; the former not so much. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arms & Hearts: when you say the emoji represents discomfort or upset rather than confusion, are you speaking about how the image appears to you or how you've seen it used by others?: I would say yes to both. However, I found no Pew Research Center study on how this emoji was perceived, so the way I saw this emoji being used remains an anecdotal evidence.
    None of the RSs discussing it are of any help:
    • Dictionary.com states the emoji "expresses confusion but also a range of other emotions, including bafflement, displeasure, disappointment, mild sadness, and self-pity. All of that can be earnest … or it can be ironic, you decide."
    • The Reader's Digest states: "We were surprised to find out that this emoji is called 'confused face,' but on further reflection, it does have an aura of bewilderment."
    Veverve (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Veverve. The fact we're bound to rely on anecdotal evidence here makes me lean towards deleting, but I'll wait and see if anyone else can offer any clarity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with @Arms & Hearts:, I am definitely sympathetic to the idea that it should perhaps reflect the most common meaning rather than just a redirect based on the name. However, if we don't have a single obvious meaning, perhaps a short disambig page would be practical? "😕 ("confused face") is an emoji which has multiple meanings, and may be used to refer to: confusion ; disappointment; sadness..."
This would let us cope with the moderately ambiguous ones which don't rise to the level of needing a full article like 😂, and it avoids giving a strange result for the readers who do think it means confusion. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how this appears in different font schemes is irrelevant. Unicode defines characters so that they have a universal set meaning upon investigation. That definition is generally what we follow; WP:EMOJI. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the intended meaning. Do not disambiguate as such a page would be predicated entirely on original research. eviolite (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arguments for keeping boil down to "it's the official name", which I find unconvincing for reasons laid out above, and I don't see any significant harm in deleting. Deleting also seems much more closely aligned with WP:EMOJI, which says redirects from emojis are often kept if the character has a clear and definite meaning ... The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear. There's no alternative target that would be obviously preferable to the current target, and I agree with Eviolite that a disambiguation page wouldn't be appropriate (so keeping would be my second choice). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current redirect isn't very useful. Despite its official name, it doesn't look very much like a confused face in my browser. Moreover, by landing at Confusion, the reader isn't keyed in on the fact that it even has an official meaning -- the redirection feels like an OR choice by a random editor. Unfortunately, by deleting the redirect we fail to provide even that information. This case would be best served by some kind of list of emojis, or a soft redirect to wikt:😕. Daß Wölf 23:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the official name may be confusion, the expressions it is actually used for are much broader. signed, Rosguill talk 06:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:😕, where readers can identify the emoji's official name. CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this is useful. Segaton (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who does not know what this emoji is can input it into the search bar. Since it takes the searcher to a page on confusion, they will be informed that the emoji is related to confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 😕
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since several online websites state that 😕 represent a confused face. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:50, 12 June 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_June_12&oldid=1098710298"