Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2022.

Real vampires[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, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires aren't real, but in any case Vampire (disambiguation) does not disambiguate the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Vampire lifestyle. SpinningSpark 22:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As overly vague. Just because someone is living in a manner similar to a vampire does not mean they are a "real" vampire - the closest to that is animals like vampire bats. Overall there is no obvious target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I saw "real vampires" the first thing that came to my mind would be (real) people that were believed to be vampires, like Elizabeth Báthory or Vlad the Impaler. This is sort of discussed at Vampire. Some other plausible if unlikely things someone searching this might be looking for, eg Vampire lifestyle and various vampire animals are also at the current target. Other potential articles someone might be looking for are Clinical vampirism (certainly "real"), or even Blood as food or Hematophagy. Perhaps those last three should be added to the see also section of Vampire (disambiguation)? A7V2 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - With more thought, there's a vagueness here that makes none of the proposed articles seem quite right as a place to go to. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:28, 10 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.

Dendrobaena veneta[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully synonymous. --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could also re-structure the article to cover an entire species complex, reflecting the messy current use of the worm. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The species is mentioned several times at target article, and is also deemed as similar to the one featured there. No need for deletion. Re-structuring the target also seems like a viable option. CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artoria2e5:. Dendrobaena veneta has priority over D. hortensis. If there is a species complex, it should be at D. veneta, right? Am I missing something? It's not a matter of restructuring the D. hortensis article, D. veneta needs an article of its own. Plantdrew (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Well… yes. The move was initially done because I saw a page under the "D. veneta" name near-exclusively using the "E. hortensis" name in the text. —Artoria2e5 🌉 14:57, 9 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 20:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cyclone, and remove the self-redirects from the target. When we have enough content for a separate article, the redirect can be overwritten. Jay (talk) 17:59, 16 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 no consensus. Keep has a sizable lead in the !vote count, but I'm not seeing a clear winner in the actual discussion between keep and delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointless Wiktionary symbol redirect. The wiktionary target here is useless, consisting of a single word (the unicode character name) with no attempt at explaining what this symbol actually means or when it is used. This also fails the conditions for soft redirection laid out at WP:SSRT, this is neither a commonly wikified words or a page that has been repeatedly recreated. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All single unicode characters should be blue links, and Neel.arunabh has expanded the target at Wiktionary so that it gives an explanation of the meaning and how it is used. The WP:SOFTSP guideline is not a set of requirements that every soft redirect must meet, but a guideline that lists the most common situations where one is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, it serves no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also think a WP:REDLINK-type deletion would be beneficial because I'm surprised that I can't find a good article for this to target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: What else, other than the definition that now exists at Wiktionary, is there to say about this character? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of between in mathematics. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, if there is enough to sustain an article (my research has failed to find anything that suggests there is) would be at a title like Between (mathematics) and contain nothing about this character other than a definition. Iff that article is written the by all means retarget it there, but until such time we do people a disservice by dropping people (sometimes after several clicks) into a search results page that will contain no relevant information other than, possibly, a link to the Wiktionary entry we could have taken them to directly and conveniently. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off with the exaggeration. If you search this character, there is a box on the right side that says Results from sister projects with a link to the Wiktionary page. It's one click from the search page and it's one click via a soft redirect. There's no difference. Also, if your research fails to find anything worthwhile, then it's not going to be a plausible search term and would thus fail the criteria for soft redirects to Wiktionary. -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly every individual unicode character with a defined meaning is a plausible search term, this is widely established (otherwise we would routinely link them in the tables of unicode characters or routinely keep them here. Secondly, there is no exaggeration - search results are not guaranteed to contain links to Wiktionary, nor are they always immediately presented to a searcher (what they see depends what device they are using, how they are navigating and whether they can start new articles; for example someone following a redlink on desktop will be invited to search and/or create an article first and have to choose to look at search results), so even if someone does see the sister projects box, and does immediately recognise that it's the only useful thing they will see from the internal search results, then it's not always just a single click away. Thirdly, I didn't say that my research found anything worthwhile - the internal search engine found nothing relevant, external search engines found content suitable for Wiktionary but not for Wikipedia.
    Finally, not a single benefit of deletion over a soft redirect has been established - even if the Wiktionary article were always one click away after deletion (which it wouldn't be) then it would still offer no advantages over the soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eviolite's revelations demonstrate a need for an article explaining these symbols, the differences between them, and how they are used. Wiktionary cannot do that justice. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see what is accomplished by deleting this. WP:R#D10 doesn't apply here since nobody would create an article at the Unicode character, and the target does provide significant information on this character. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems to have an appropriate explanation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should all single Unicode characters have an extant page where there is a single reasonable target? That is a good question which cannot be litigated here where through discussions on individual items. Perhaps a wider community discussion on the matter might be a good idea. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus here has long been that individual unicode characters (outside the private use area) are plausible search terms - every time the evidence of page views etc is presented it's clear that people do look up these characters on Wikipedia (and frankly why wouldn't they?). There is no disagreement that when there is a single reasonable target the characters should redirect to that. The disagreement here is over whether there is a reasonable target or not. The other type of disagreement about single characters are over (1) which of multiple reasonable targets is best; and (2) whether a red link/search results are better than (one or more) target(s) that are alright but not great. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not close prematurely. The example currently used in Wiktionary does not make any sense and is not attested anywhere; likely just a (misguided) attempt to apply the name "between" literally. See wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/May#≬. Right now, it seems that we are redirecting to a page that consists of nothing but the Unicode character name and unverifiable, likely factual errors; I'm not comfortable having the discussion end before a conclusion on what the symbol actually means (if it does mean anything standard). eviolite (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the lead on this. Given the lack of response, I went ahead and reverted Neel.arunabh's additions. He has been banned from English Wikipedia for similar antics, so this comes at no surprise to me. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For final reconsideration following changes to content at the redirect's wiktionary target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd expect there would be an entry for this in either Glossary of mathematical symbols or List of mathematical symbols by subject, but there isn't. Until one is added, I don't see any problems with the Wiktionary target: even after getting stripped of the list of examples, it still provides the Unicode metadata as well as a definition, which should be enough information for any reader who's encountered this symbol in a real-life context. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 3 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.

🐱‍🚀[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 Emoji#Joining. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this confusing set of redirects today for some reason, and I fail to understand why these emojis were placed together or if they have anything in common (i.e. What does a cat have in common with a rocket?). I then searched the target for clues, but it doesn't seem to provide any information on why these redirects were created. Deletion seems to be the only way to go here, unless someone finds a better target than the current one, which needless to say is completely unhelpful. CycloneYoris talk! 23:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You might not have an updated browser if you can't see these correctly. There is zero reason to delete valid emojis. These emojis were created by Microsoft and had notable coverage. See [1], [2], etc. Gonnym (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: My browser is certainly updated, and all I can see are two separate emojis: A cat and another random object. Maybe these don't work if you're on iOS? CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris these might only work on Microsoft operating systems since these are their emojis. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ninja Cat series of emojis were removed in 2021 [3]. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say we should retarget the astro cat emoji to Félicette, but that probably wouldn't be helpful. All of these are examples of emoji ZWJ sequences, but that's (obviously) a redlink. They're Windows-only emoji and were introduced in Windows 10 version 1607, which might be the best target for now. That article mentions emoji updates, but not these specifically. - Eureka Lott 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Emoji#Joining might be an appropriate retarget as it's close to Emoji ZWJ sequences. TartarTorte 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @CycloneYoris: this RfD and this discussion may be relevant. Veverve (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's why I made these redirects: It may not look it, but these are actually valid emojis. On your screen, they may look like two random emojis, but on some platforms, they're actually a single emoji combined together by a Zero Width Joiner. Take this: 👁️‍🗨️. It may look like one Emoji, but it's actually a merger of these two emoji with a ZWJ in between: 👁🗨. Pacingpal (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also 🕵️ which redirects to Detective for some reason, this was at RfD before. Naleksuh (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 9 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.

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators (PARADE magazine)[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 23:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. The content in the page history is mostly just a duplicate of the lists from the magazines, which is a copyvio that cannot be restored. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to get rid of the copyvio in the page history. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably could/should have been rev-deleted. Certainly the redirect is not helpful since the list is not mentioned at the target. A7V2 (talk) 10:44, 11 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.

Athletics at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's 20 kilometres walk[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 23:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD'd by Edvid as the event will not take place at the events; however, as redirects are not eligible for PROD, I figured it made sense to take this to RfD. As the event is not taking places, as stated by Edvid and confirmed by further research, then it makes complete sense to delete what is a not helpful redirect. TartarTorte 19:00, 9 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.

Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity[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 23:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly ambiguous, this phrase does not appear to have any particular affinity for this specific incident of terrorism. A few searches show this phrase being used in reliable sources to refer to a variety of different events. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for ambiguity. No DAB would ever make anyone happy. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ambiguous, subjective, inherently unverifiable. Carguychris (talk) 14:49, 10 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.

Editing a protected 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 delete. Jay (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a very useful cross namespace redirect. In 99+% of cases requests for edits to a protected page should be made at the talk page, not WP:RFPP/E. This redirect is also ambiguous, it used to target WP:Protection policy, and I think it could also reasonably target WP:Edit requests. Finally there's already an established process for requesting edits to pages, if you click the "edit" or "view source" button a button will be shown that will take you through the process of submitting an edit request. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete XNR that explicitly points to the wrong venue. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this has nothing to do with editing protected memory pages (which is not a wiki topic, but is a computing topic) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:09, 11 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.

No return[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 No Return. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very specific target for a title like this. Point of no return seems a lot more likely. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Point of no return per nom. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm not fully convinced that "No return" means the same things as a point of no return. Certainly the current target is a problem since this is such a general term. Second preference retarget to Point of no return. A7V2 (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perform whatever retarget or deletion required by the below suggestion by ShelfSkewed to the article currently at No Return (1973 film). I'm not sure if a dab is required or just hatnotes but I don't have an opinion either way. A7V2 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe disambiguate). This used to be a disambiguation page until ShelfSkewed turned it into a redirect in 2011, and I don't understand why. "No return" is ambiguous and could refer to quite a few different things, so retargeting does not seem appropriate to me. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was not a proper disambiguation page; it was a list of partial title matches. I redirected to the only use (at the time) that is called "No Return".—ShelfSkewed Talk 13:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to No Return after that redirect is deleted to make way for No Return (1973 film). The film is the only article using that precise title, so it should use the undisambiguated title. Then create a dab page at No Return (disambiguation) that would list the film, TV episode, and Polo G song that match No Return, and include an in-title search link for all the partial matches.—ShelfSkewed Talk 13:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created No Return (disambiguation) per ShelfSkewed, and used an anchor I created in XxxHolic: Kei. Jay (talk) 18:36, 16 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.

Ning'an Railway[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) ZandDev (msg) 16:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

capitalized ZandDev (msg) 11:53, 9 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.

Thriller (Michael Jackson album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Thriller (Michael Jackson album

Astronomical event[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Astronomical event

Gilman Hot Springs, ca[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) 06:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The re-direct Gilman Hot Springs exists and quite rightly points to Gold Base. This redirect points to a wikilink in Riverside County, California which then links to Gold Base. I'd just re-point it but the duplication of 'Gilman Hot Springs' in the search bar is confusing for readers, there's no other Gilman Hot Springs to disambiguate from and the lowercase abbreviation of 'ca' is odd. Zindor (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seems unnecessary. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Gold Base. There is also Gilman Hot Springs, California which targets the same section as Gilman Hot Springs. So probably not very useful, considering the forms with proper abbreviation ("CA" or "Cal." or "Ca.") don't exist, but also likely harmless and could be retargeted. But I agree the potential for cluttering of search results that can lead to confusion weighs slightly toward deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:09, 10 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.

Jewish community[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Jewish community

TEN10[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#TEN10

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_9&oldid=1097807694"