Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2022.

File:Favicon.PNG[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 23:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meaninglessly vague redirect name; also misleading as this is not the English Wikipedia favicon -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. It could refer to any of the hundreds of images in C:Category:Favicons. - Eureka Lott 16:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. The target was at the redirect's title for over 7 years; removing the redirect could potentially create external linkrot. In addition, the redirect is not subject to the strict requirements of title names since the redirect is not in the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not correct per website design conventions. Any file called "favicon.xyz" should be the favicon for the webstie in question. This is not functioning that way, so it is wrong per website design criteria. This is not the English Wikipedia favicon. Further it is a copyrighted file it is not a free file. So any external link to this file is wrong since it is trying to access a fair-use file. Accessing the file this way is violating the fair use parameters, so any external links should necessarily be broken. Further WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files That convention fundamentally is broken, since it violates English Wikipedia WP:POLICY on Wikipedia not being an image repository. Any external links to English Wikipedia files are wrong. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being old should not supersede being nonsensical. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 29 March 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.

Emmerdale Films[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 List of Emmerdale spin-offs and merchandise#Films. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term, has no backlinks and is incorrectly capitalised anyway. – DarkGlow • 22:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak refine to List of Emmerdale spin-offs and merchandise#Films. Someone may not search it with the capital F and it's not currently being used much, but this redirect is unambiguous and potentially helpful to those looking for the movies in question-that section is also a better target than the page in general. Regards, SONIC678 23:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and refine as suggested). It was a plausible title to the editor who created the list in 2010 at that title. Lower-case "f" version more useful: will create it. PamD 23:15, 26 March 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 railway stations in the United States[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 23:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific a target. Suggest deleting and creating a Lists of railway stations in the United States for the contents in Category:Lists of railway stations in the United States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 26 March 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.

Virgin Cuba Libre[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 23:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a joke and should be deleted. A "Virgin Cuba Libre" is a rum and Coke without the rum, that is, it's just Coke. It is not discussed either at the Rum and Coke page or at the Coca-Cola page, so there is no reasonable target for the redirect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 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.

Minimal criminal[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 between keeping and retargeting. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant target article; "Minimal counterexample" is a mathematical concept, while the title of the redirect is "Minimal criminal" which itself doesn't make any sense. Should be listed for retargeting —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaiaphas#Minimal Criminal as it seems that is a name that he has used and Googling for it shows more hits for him than for anything else, on the first page at least. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is linked from Well-ordering principle, another mathematical article, which is pending references from 2008. I have added another citations needed for the criminal part. Jay (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote for the Kaiaphas project. Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, "What is Mathematics?" 2nd ed., 1996, ISBN 9780195105193, page 495: "Since there is no point in making bad maps bigger, we go the opposite way and look at the smallest bad maps, colloquially known as minimal criminals."
The term seems to have arisen in the context of the four color theorem. Paradoctor (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source has been located, but there is still no mention at the current target. The primary topic question also remains unresolved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaiaphas#Minimal Criminal. It rarely makes sense to keep redirects tht are not mentioned at their target when alternative targets that do mention the term are available. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Results on Google Books are virtually all for the concept in maths, which clearly has more long-term significance than the obscure music project. The target article doesn't need to have explicit mentions of all synonyms, and the fact that is is indeed a synonym is trivially easy to verify. I wouldn't be opposed to disambiguating, if only so that a core encyclopedic article wouldn't need to have a hatnote advertising a music band. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 10 April 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.

Chile at the 2023 Pan American Games[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 23:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the country's participation on the target article. Too soon to have an individual article. Delete for now and can be created later. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Does nothing other than provide a misleading bluelink. A7V2 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 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.

Russia vs. Ukraine[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 23:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a standard way to refer to wars, and could be confused for either an article comparing the countries or a court case with the plaintiffs of Russia and Ukraine (along the lines of US v. Iran). I think that deletion is appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 26 March 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.

Even more Spider-Man[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd film in the series was never made, so redirects for a sequel to a cancelled film really don't make sense. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 16:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom said, there was no 3rd film in The Amazing Spider-Man film series. No real value in such a link. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – SirDot (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doesn’t make sense that someone would try to look up a fourth film in a two film series.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 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.

SM (2002 film)[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasoning as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22 § Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 2) and § The Amazing Spider Man (again). These films are never referred to by these truncated names. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support per nom. @InfiniteNexus: you might want to fix Spider-Man: Home 3- it's listed twice and points to two different pages. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Had meant to nominate Deadpool (2018 film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – SirDot (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The "Spider-Man: Home #" series is just horrible. No one calls Spider-Man: No Way Home "Spider-Man: Home 3" and there is very little chance of that actually being used as a search term. As for linking, that will never be a valid link. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a TV or web series but not a film. It's also pointless as The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is the dab will not be needed anyways (and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (TV series) already exists). Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 26 March 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.

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation

Bigamy (in Civil Law)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Bigamy (in Civil Law)

Appleton, WI MSA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Appleton, WI MSA

Marek Ujlaky (footballer, born 1989)[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) 16:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of other Mareks Ujlaky or birthdate confusion at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Ujlaky (footballer, born 2003) is the son of Marek Ujlaky (footballer, born 1974). Both are named identically - needed to differentiate. The elder's year of birth was listed incorrectly in the page name (1989 - 1974 is correct). Hope it helps Otapka (talk) 17:18, 26 March 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.

814 (rap group)[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) 15:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really isn’t any need for a redirect for 814 plus 814 is more of a gang then a rap group PHSB is more of the rap group then 814.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UK Rap and Drill Editor (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 March 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.

Feminist views of stripping and sex work[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) 15:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Stripping is one of many forms of sex work. The use of "and" makes it impossible to determine what the reader wants to focus on reading. Is it an article focusing on feminist views on stripping (i.e. the current target)? Or an article that discusses feminist views on sex work in general (i.e. Sex work#Feminist debate)? This redirect could plausibly point to either. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 14:57, 26 March 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.

Amazing (2012 film)[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created with no incoming links. There is very little chance that a person looking for this film will write this search term, which does not even have the most important phrase "Spider-Man" in it. Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 26 March 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.

Pays de Galles[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 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity to the French language Bonoahx (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “inappropriate example” from WP:RLOTE applies: “Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English.” French language version never used in English (or Welsh). DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 26 March 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.

Fantastic Four 3[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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This movie was a reboot of the Fantastic Four movie series, and has never been called "Fantastic Four 3". Same problem as below. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 09:18, 26 March 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 Amazing Spider Man (again)[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pointless MCU redirects. Same editor as those redirects and the Mii redirects below. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Amazing #" is never how any source and probably not anyone other than this editor calls these films. Additionally, these are also ambiguous. Does Amazing 1 refer to the film or The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 video game)? Maybe even to a comic issue? Since there isn't a primary topic for the one word "Amazing", this just does not help anyone. The first two Peter Parks suffer from the same issue. Which Peter variation does it refer to? Can just as much be to The Amazing Spider-Man. The final two are more "meh" but seeing as how this editor keeps on creating redirects that are consistently being sent to RfD by different editors working in different areas, I'm afraid even keeping one redirect will give them the wrong signal. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also add TASM4 and TASM 4 to the list. There is no 3rd film so there obviously isn't a fourth. Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all was iffy on Peter Parker (2002 film) and Peter Parker (2012 film), but those are not helpful disambiguations in any way, so they should go with the rest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reason as all the other nominations, these redirects are not helpful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the other nominations. – SirDot (talk) 16:45, 26 March 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:Speedy rename[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Wikipedia:Speedy rename

Pointless Mii Redirects[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VERY large group of redirects created yet again by User:RomanceLove88 (see March 22 Backlog). They appear to be attempting to create redirects for quite literally every single NPC Mii included in Nintendo games. The likelihood of anyone actively attempting to find an article for these NPCs (which are likely completely unnotable as a whole, as they are just avatars with no dialogue) is close to none. This isn't even half the list of Mii redirects, I just gave up at this point. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 07:09, 26 March 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.

Diuranium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Diuranium

Irish people in Scotland[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 procedural close. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe better retarget to Irish Scottish people? You opinions? Olchug (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose POV-pushing by someone who has a very odd view on Scots-Irish relations and seems to disbelieve in ethnic groups and wants to throw everything in a massive fruit bowl. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: These nomination were done directly after undiscussed retargets were reverted. The Banner talk 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner conform to WP:BRD: bold edit, revert, discuss. What did I wrong? Olchug (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    POV-pushing. First you tried to change them undiscussed and after some pushback you promptly nominated them. Note that the talk pages all have red links.The Banner talk 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner almost nobody watches redirect's talk pages. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was developed. Olchug (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are wrong. This page is not for pushing undiscussed, controversial changes.The Banner talk 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner this is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Thus I repeat my question: what am I wrong about? Olchug (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not the right place to start a primary discussion. First discussion on the talk page of the redirect, if that fails, this page is an option. The Banner talk 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:11, 26 March 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.

Irish loyalism[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 procedural close. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. If someone in good standing still wishes to discuss this redirect, they may renominate it. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ulster loyalism. Loyalism is not the same as Unionism Olchug (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:11, 26 March 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_March_26&oldid=1083320444"