Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2022.

Wikipedia:EK[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 per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor shouldn't use Wikipedia (i.e. official, community-approved looking) shortcuts to brand new pages in their own user space. Fram (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The prohibition the nom mentions simply does not exist and there are no other reasons for deletion given. The only occasions RfD has deleted WP shortcuts to userspace is when there is a consensus that the target is actively harmful or otherwise contrary to community consensus in some way. Such does not exist in this case, and the target seems to be an uncontroversial optional user script so it seems unlikely to generate one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mention any prohibition, to use your pompous language. I give my opinion that such a redirect shouldn´t be created. Fram (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine to hold that opinion, just don't be surprised if you get called out when expressing it in a manner that implies a general prohibition. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I´m not surprised by you calling out anything, whether real or imaginary. If I wanted to state an existing general prohibition, I would have stated "per x" with a link. Then again, you don´t even agree that IAR may be used when it violates a rule, so I don´t think it is much use trying to explain such things to you. Fram (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Given that your comment is both grossly misleading and an ad hominem I think it best if you refrain from discussing other editors and stick to identifying what is harmful about this specific redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, in my opinion (added for the hard of hearing), an editor with a history of problematic redirects (see their talk page) shouldn´t add some brandnew, untested, unused script in their userspace to the Wikipedia namespace through a redirect. Such redirects are okay for oft-cited essays and the like, but just letting everyone who feels like it creating wikipedia redirects to their own pages seems like a bad way to proceed. Wikipedia is a common space, user space is personal . As for "grossly misleading statements", people can check the discussions at the csd talk page to see for themselves. I´m on mobile, so I´ll not try to link it now as that´s too much effort. But I presume others can see how you interpreted my opening statement here and draw their own conclusions. Fram (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Just reread the discussion[1], and I don´t see what´s so grossly misleading about my statement. An IAR speedy deletion is never allowed because in your view, a speedy deletion that doesn´t follow any of the existing rules is by definition controversial, and a controversial deletion can never be a correct speedy deletion. Which is wonderful circular reasoning and ignores what purpose IAR actually serves. Oh well, enough about this, suffice it to say that the way you started here just went to confirm my opinion of you once more. Fram (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Your opinion of me could not be less relevant (so why you bring it up every time we interact is baffling), but the reason your statement is grossly misleading is because you don´t even agree that IAR may be used when it violates a rule and (paraphrased) IAR is only for actions that are uncontroversial and improve the encyclopadia, speedy deletion of any page that does not meet a CSD criterion is always controversial and harms the encyclopaedia, therefore IAR can never be a justification for speedy deletion are two very, very different statements (and also completely irrelevant here)
            Thank you though for providing a rationale for deletion that should have been included with your nomination (we are not mind readers). I still disagree that this redirect is harmful, but at least now it is possible to understand why you think it is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • So at first you adressed something I hadn´t written, and now you don´t address it at all. OK. Fram (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially an editor with a history of problematic redirects (see their talk page) shouldn´t add some brandnew, untested, unused script in their userspace to the Wikipedia namespace through a redirect. If the script becomes established, then a shortcut would make sense. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation if the tool becomes more popular. TartarTorte 01:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice for recreation if the tool becomes more popular.Wiki-psyc (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily delete, because the script is not widely used yet. When the number of users of the tool increases, we will recover it by DRV.⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy temporary delete, per WP:G7, as per creator Q28 above. No need to drag this nomination longer now. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 05:43, 4 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.

Deidre DeJear[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Deidre DeJear is the democratic frontrunner for Governor of Iowa. Similar to the Theresa Greenfield situation, she should have her own page, not just a redirect, especially seeing that she is most likely the nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftup8492 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I mean until an article is written, the redirect should remain, at which point it could be G6'd. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and close. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless and until and article is written the redirect takes people to the place where they will find the greatest amount of relevant encyclopaedic information about the subject - which is exactly what someone searching for this person on Wikipedia is looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. RfD is not for asking for articles to be created over redirects. There is nothing to be done with this redirect. Nom should be aware boldly turning articles into redirects is encouraged as it says at the top of the RfD page. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep until article is created. Nominator may create an article themselves, or if they can't, they may request an article to be created at WP:Requested articles. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 05:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so it's already requested there. Please have patience. When an editor knowledgeable enough to start an article about the subject finds it, they'll write it. Allso, I reiterate that you're encouraged to create the article yourself. But please consider reading Your First Article first. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 06:05, 4 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.

Conjugation (biochemistry)[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 Bioconjugation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section was removed from target page by Smokefoot as off topic - and the guy who failed chemistry class found maybe two different pages it could go to, so I'm going to let the smarter people retarget this. Or not retarget it, idk. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:07, 3 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.

Unused Templates Task Force[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 deleted by Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cross-namespace redirect that was recently created, rarely viewed, and likely too obscure to be helpful to any readers. Anyone who stumbles upon a mention of this somewhere in projectspace/talkspace/etc likely knows to look for it in projectspace. eviolite (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apologies if I screwed something up. At the time when I was creating not only this but another redirect to the task force I started. The reason being to add the active WikiProject banner on the task force's home page. I'll tag it for speedy deletion and it will be removed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:21, 3 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_3&oldid=1076239224"