Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 25[edit]

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

Kirby's Dreamland 4[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 05:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, as both terms are not mentioned in their respective target articles. They do share similarities in that both are traditional Kirby games for home gaming consoles, with Kirby 64 following 1997's Kirby's Dream Land 3, but nothing in the articles indicates that these were meant to be direct sequels. (Basically copy and pasted my rationale from this discussion.) LBWP (talk) 23:41, 25 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:AY[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 keep at nominator’s request. (non-admin closure) NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the relation between the shortcut and the target. Probably created in error? I went over all backlinks and none of them are in the context of Antarctica. The reason I happened to use the shortcut is because I was looking for the template AY, but typed wp:ay by mistake. I would suggest deletion if the shortcut doesn't make sense. Jay (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can it be mentioned at the target? Who is going to use this code? Jay (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject pages don't offer many opportunities for providing context. The shortcut could be listed with the others in the infobox. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be closed as withdrawn, unless the closer finds any merit in the discussion. Jay (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:24, 26 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.

Discrimination against trans women[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Discrimination against trans women

Placer Dam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Placer Dam

The Best Sex Ever[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 05:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page was recently deleted through this AfD. The decision stated, in conclusion, the following: "The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is." However, as soon as admin Guerillero enforced the AfD decision and deleted the page, it was recreated immediately by editor Sangdeboeuf, with the edit summary "redirecting to [another article] per WP:CHEAP & WP:DIFFCAPS – notwithstanding [the AfD outcome]". I propose that the original AfD decision be enforced to the letter and the article deleted entirely, instead of being turned into a redirect. Otherwise, there is no point in AfD discussions, nor in following AfD decisions. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC) -The Gnome (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging, per WP:AFDHOWTO, Guerillero, TenPoundHammer, Gene93k, Donaldd23, Mrschimpf, Ritchie333, Bookworm857158367, Sangdeboeuf. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per policy, per the AFD close as noted in the nom here: a three-week-ago XFD close should stand. If someone has new information not available during an XFD discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place after having attempted to discuss it directly with the XFD closer rather than simply recreating it knowing full well it's against the close. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:DIFFCAPS. The redirect is useful (several other pages mention this program), not harmful, and typographically distinct from the non–title case phrase the best sex ever. The previous article was not recreated, so that objection is moot. The DIFFCAPS issue was not raised at AfD, so is not affected by the outcome of that discussion. Rather than these spurious procedural rationales, the nominator and others should cite specific WP:PG-based reasons for deleting the redirect itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An XFD close is pretty much the definition of there being a discussion with consensus declared of it; WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and none of the parts of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy are "I don't like the close, so I'm going to go against it and you'll all just accept it". DMacks (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is also policy. One of the ways it can change is by introducing previously unconsidered arguments. DIFFCAPS is such an argument. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you had new arguments to offer, Sangdeboeuf, which, in your opinion, might have altered consensus, you should have contested the AfD decision instead of "boldly" violating it. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd appreciate it, Sangdeboeuf, if you kept invective to a minimum, or, preferably, away from any interaction with fellow editors. Arguing that the reasons I propose this deletion are wrong, false, misguided, misinformed, etc, would be obviously and entirely legitimate. Even arguing that my "rationales" are about procedure, and implying "not on substance," would also be fine. But claiming that I offer spurious arguments is a smear. Suggesting I submit something that is "fake" and "not being what it purports to be", per the dictionary, is ignoring WP:AGF. Kindly be careful with such missteps. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken, again. I never accused anyone of intending to mislead. Take care. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying then you do not know the meaning of the term "spurious argument." Fair enough, but now that, hopefully, you know it means an argument that is fake, kindly refrain from using the term without cause. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you do not know the meaning of WP:AGF. Something can be false without being intentionally so. Cheers! -Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the meaning of WP:AGF. Something can indeed be false without being intentionally so. Not the case when something is spurious. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:a hit dog will holler. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took some time but Q.E.D. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a circumvention of AfD consensus. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a decades-old, obscure Skinemax show, rightfully deleted. Absent the show, "the best sex ever" is just a generic term. Btw, there's a lot of cruft at List of Cinemax original programming that is ripe for XfDs as well. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase "the best sex ever" is too common an expression, and the association with the little-remarked Cinemax content is too weak to justify the target as a plausible destination. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding is that a redirect created at a page that was deleted as the result of a discussion at Afd does not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G4 because a redirect is substantially different from an article. That said, while I agree consensus can change, that takes time, and creating a redirect at a page that was recently deleted as the result of a deletion discussion is disruptive and contrary to existing consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:24, 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.

10001 (number)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#10001 (number)

Trace College[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Trace College

Properties[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 Property (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as know, the plural does not exist for the target meaning. Should be retargeted to Property (philosophy) or Property (mathematics). I suggest the first one, as the second one may be viewed as a subtopic. Another possibility would be to redirect to Property (disambiguation) D.Lazard (talk) 13:39, 25 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.

Draft:Force choke[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, R3 by User:Athaenara Lenticel (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was never a draft and is not mentioned at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:22, 25 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.

Dissociality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Dissociality

Epikh Pro[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 draftify. Jay (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, article previously at this location (converted back to redirect for lack of apparent notability) doesn't mention target. firefly ( t · c ) 10:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously at location was meant to be a draft page. Epikh Pro (subject of new article) and Symbolyc One (S1) are two different people. S1 is Epikh Pro's colleague and former business partner, mentioned in incomplete article that has been removed. Due to the incorrect redirect, I would like the redirect to stay deleted, and the previous article restored as a draft so the article can be completed, fully sourced, and updated. As long as the redirect stays in place it inhibits the ability for an article to be written for this multi-platinum, twice Grammy-nominated, ASCAP award winning producer. 247ice (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify previous article, and delete redirect per creators request. I think that this article has some potential but due to quality, sourcing, and potential WP:COI issues it really needs to go through WP:AFC. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have split the history (hopefully correctly; another admin is welcome to check and fix if needed) such that (a) the current version and its history are the redirect being discussed and (b) the draft article and its history are now at Draft:Epikh Pro. --Kinu t/c 19:46, 25 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.

Terço dos Homens (Men's Rosary)[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 (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect deleted because it mixes English and Portuguese. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:34, 25 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.

Lebro[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 (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:28, 25 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.

Tetramethylammonium auride[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 replace with article. Jay (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to link to a different compound like this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outright misleading. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gold#Rare oxidation states if this target is deemed inappropriate. Note that a {{visible anchor}} could also be used on this target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per 1234qwer1234qwer4 if not delete. An article about a group or class is a reasonable target for redirects about specific members of the class that don't have their own article. A redirect from one member of a class to a different one when there is a class article is confusing and makes it harder to build the web. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with actual article. But better yet, let's stub this thing. It's a notable chemical (first of a certain type to be made). User:DMacks/Tetramethylammonium auride. Anyone with sufficient rights is free to move this to mainspace, no need to leave a redirect. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the draft created by DMacks, which is a reasonable chemical stub. It's nice to have the ideal solution as an option, so thank you for creating that. --Kinu t/c 21:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move the draft to title. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:13, 25 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_25&oldid=1096268551"