Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2022.

Spotted Caribbean stingray[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Spotted Caribbean stingray

Synthyris[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Jay (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not described as synonym at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's listed under synonyms at the bottom of the infobox, and collapsed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that this is a synonym can easily be checked at e.g. PoWO. Any thoughts, 1234qwer1234qwer4? – Uanfala (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, sorry, I'm going to withdraw this then. However, I would like to know whether there are any problems with Synthyris missurica and Synthyris reniformis (which made me think this wouldn't be a synonym in the first place). 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to PoWO, Synthyris reniformis is a synonym of Veronica regina-nivalis, and Synthyris missurica – of Veronica missurica. I don't know if the taxonomic scheme followed by those two articles is now obsolete, or if it's an acceptable alternative. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, any thoughts @Plantdrew? 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4:, North American botanists seem to continue to recognize Synthyris (the Flora of North America treatment published in 2019 recognizes Synthyris while mentioning it can also be treated as a subgenus of Veronica). This wouldn't be the first time POWO has taken a position on North American plants that is different from the position taken by North American botanists (and I'm sure there are cases where Australian botanists disagree with POWO's treatment of Australian plants). However, Veronica is a paraphyletic if Synthyris is excluded. Hebe (plant) should also be included included in Veronica, but Wikipedia has 18 articles on Hebe species. I'm not sure if New Zealand botanists are fully on board with including Hebe in Veronica. Wikipedia should go with the broad sense of Veronica (including Hebe, Synthyris and other genera). The species list in the Veronica article represents the broad sense, but there are some species articles that need to be moved. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 28 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.

2019 FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup[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 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the target page. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Target page needs improvement, but it does mention that there were separate men's and women's tournaments, and it is intuitive that there would be some means of qualification. BD2412 T 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1&2 - Neutral on 3, its not mentioned at the target - will let others decide. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:10, 15 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 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand the parent article to cover the qualifying and the events themselves. Better to have one better quality article about this than multiple separate crap articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 23 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.

Christian disco[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 00:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco is not mentioned at the target, and is not equivalent to EDM. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete disco isn’t mentioned a single time in the target article meaning someone potentially looking for info on the subject wouldn’t find what they are looking for. I can also confirm that the Disco article doesn’t mention this either.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find a good target article for this one. We do have a mention of the drummer Christian "Disco" Schellhorn in Lord of the Lost but I think that counts as a partial title match.--Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirecting a disco redirect to an EDM page is rather misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:27, 23 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.

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety[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 00:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this court case on the target page. I am not sure if the court case is independently notable as I have not looked into it too much but this redirect is not appropriate unless we are going to discuss the court case on this page. Could possibly redirect to the article on the current Supreme Court term though, we may have a better redirect target after the case is decided, which should be in the next week or so. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/vandalism. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The court should not lose sight of the elephant-in-the-room: why is Torres not entitled to a service-connected disability pension?
Leroy Torres v Texas Department of Public Safety, Docket 20-603, Reply brief for Petitioner (18 March 2022), p.8: "Whatever the outer limits of Congress’s power to authorize suits under its war powers might be, suits by soldiers for discrimination on the basis of war injuries are at the core."
This court has NEVER ruled on disability pension rights for mobilized reservists that 38 USC 4318 cites a right. This court should grant Torres his disability pension rights as perquisites of seniority protected under the statute and restructure the USERRA regulatory enforcement process.
The conundrum herein is if Torres is granted the ability to enforce Congress' War Powers, it is an acknowledgment that the federal regulatory process is not working and should be changed, possibly to the Department of Veterans Affairs. If Torres is denied, Torres has no further recourse and is denied USERRA's 38 USC 4318 disability pension entitlements.
Torres' reemployment rights are to treat him as if he had not incurred a break in service for pension purposes, see 38 USC 4312(f)(3)(B) and 38 USC 4318(a)(2)(A). Employee pension benefit plan rights are entitled, see 38 USC 4316(b)(6).
"Providing reemployment rights for those who have been called to the service of their country is, in our view, a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to raise armies." Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275, 284 (1946).
"We conclude, therefore, that pension payments are predominantly rewards for continuous employment with the same employer. Protecting veterans from the loss of such rewards when the break in their employment resulted from their response to the country's military needs is the purpose..." Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977) at 594.
“[W]e held in Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977), that pension benefits are perquisites of seniority protected under the statute.” Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp., 447 U.S. 191, 195 (1980).
A benefit is a right of seniority secured to a veteran if it would have accrued with reasonable certainty, as opposed to being subject to a significant contingency, had the veteran been continuously employed by the employer, McKinney v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 357 U. S. 265 (1958); Tilton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 376 U. S. 169 (1964), and if it is in the nature of a reward for length of service, rather than short-term compensation for services rendered, Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 383 U. S. 225 (1966); Foster v. Dravo Corp., 420 U. S. 92 (1975) Pp. 431 U. S. 585-589.
38 USC 4318, Internal Revenue Code 414(u) and the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (“HEART Act“) Pub. L. No. 110-245 Section 104 discuss the interrelationships of what constitutes an Internal Revenue Code 401(a) "qualified pension plan" regarding USERRA. The "forcing function" would be finding pension plans in violation of USERRA and losing their tax-exempt status. That forfeiture is considered catastrophic without merit by State and local government employers so their argument is to cite USERRA as unconstitutional, the obfuscating MacGuffin. Any payout that causes pension fund depletion requires those employers to contribute to prevent insolvency. Government agencies draw upon their General Funds to maintain solvency and thus run counter to political pet programs. And yet these agencies continue to draw federal dollars...
An all-volunteer force, because they answered their nation's call, disenfranchised. Disability pension rights are not some added benefit, it is to not be treated less than those who did not answer the call. Not better, only not less than. "Out of luck" in violation of USERRA's "on-the-job" equivalency requirement for “those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation”, see Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943).
"But if petitioner is to be placed on an equal footing with his co-workers, his military absences cannot be treated simply as personal leaves of absence.[...] A reservist's absences...result from obligations vital to our national defense that other employees have not assumed, and the primary purpose of the reemployment rights statutes is to protect reservists against disadvantages in employment caused by these obligations. Indeed, the essence of the statutory guarantees provided by Congress is that employers must give special treatment to the military absences of veterans and reservists. [...] However, unless the statute is read as safeguarding reservists from the adverse effects of facially neutral rules, much of its practical significance is lost. " Monroe v. Standard Oil Co., 452 US 549 (1981),572-573.
So why is Torres not entitled to a service-connected disability pension?
There is a large military reserve population increasingly relied upon by the United States who may come home maimed from conflicts who have no reason to believe that the monies paid into their civilian pension plans will ever come to fruition. Those pension plans will deny benefits unless the US Supreme Court realizes that Texas performed a "bait-and-switch". 47.157.30.68 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per OP. There is no mention of the case in the main article. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:45, 29 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 Euro T20 Slam records and statistics[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 12:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect, as parent article has no records or stats, as the event has never happened. Even if the Euro T20 Slam does happen this year, we shouldn't be encouraging that article to be bloated with excessive statistics, as per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 22 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.

Euler-alpha equations[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 12:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Euler's formula are also known as Euler-alpha equations. So I think it needs to be retargeted, but I don't know the target. Also, according to the comments (thanks !), it seems to be related to fluid dynamics. SilverMatsu (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target is definitely wrong. The only reasonable target I can see on WIkipedia is Euler equations (fluid dynamics) but it does not mention this. As far as I can see it is a way of approximating the equations so cutting the cost of computation, but I'm not familiar with it. So unless someone wants to actually write section or even an article on the topic I think it should just be deleted. Anyway they seem to be referred to as α-Euler in some places and Euler-α in others. NadVolum (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, or (second choice) retarget to Euler equations (fluid dynamics), of which these are a variant. Whatever happens, don't keep as is. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. Also note that deleting this will not affect much as no article currently links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickR2 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 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.

Mr. Beast[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. The disambiguation page is at Mr. Beast (disambiguation). Jay (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least two editors, 71.237.21.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Praxidicae (talk · contribs), disagree on the proper target of this redirect. The IP wants to retarget this to the YouTuber MrBeast, who receives vastly more pageviews than the album Mr Beast. It is also possible that the correct solution is to disambiguate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. MrBeast is most likely the PT for "Mr. Beast", making it a good target for the term in quotation marks. However, the album is also a plausible target for the term as an R from punctuation. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creating a draft DAB is needed for closing this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, a (draft) dab is not needed. There is a primary topic, the YouTuber, and one other topic, the album. Per WP:ONEOTHER, we can simply hatnote to the other topic without using a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Ramos in my earlier read. Mr. Beast (disambiguation) can include him, the album, and the YouTuber. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus on the primary target, but still no agreement on whether the disambiguation is for 2 topics (hatnote) or 3 topics (for Peter John Ramos).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:39, 22 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:2RR[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! 07:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two-revert rule doesn't exist. There is a 3RR, a 1RR, and a 0RR but not a 2RR. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and this is the most likely target someone might be looking for. I'm not sure it's true that there are no 2RR restrictions on any editors or pages across the project. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The two-revert rule isn't mentioned on Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is why I nominated this. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FAdesdae378, the point of such a redirect is that it's a plausible mis-type or misunderstanding. Please don't waste others' time by trying to delete redirects that aren't actually causing problems. valereee (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to being plausibly a mistake, some people have linked to the redirect with clear and accurate intention. Reviewing Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:2RR, they've used it to say something like "I only reverted twice within 24 hours" or "I think there should be a 2RR rule". Despite not being mentioned explicitly, these meanings of 2RR are reasonably intuitable from the target page's explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable extrapolation. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention, however 3RR will help serve as a warning for those standing at 2RR. Jay (talk) 02:57, 29 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.

Students in Harry Potter's year[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 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article isn't about students in Harry Potter's year. Many of the entries on the list do not fit this description. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Misleading redirect, as not all students in Harry Potter's year were also in Dumbledore's Army, and some members of the DA weren't in his year either. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very misleading redirect, per Joseph. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inaccurate since the DA does not encompass all students in Potter's year (e.g. Draco Malfoy). NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:42, 27 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_22&oldid=1095910881"