Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2022.

Steve Irwin (attorney)[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 moot. An article has been written. ✗plicit 01:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink is more useful than a WP:SELFRED that's only used on the target page (and on Lee's article, which has a separate link to the same section). ― Tartan357 Talk 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. The individual appears notable. The text ought to be red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:52, 22 May 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.

LakeFeperd[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 01:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. The article predominantly covers the game in question, not its creator. LBWP (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. If the creator is only known for his work, then redirecting his name to the work is the right thing to do per WP:BIO1E. Regards
  • Keep per User:SoWhy CaptainGalaxy 12:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The creator is not otherwise notable, and there is quite a bit about him at the target. A7V2 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The creator is mentioned in the article. Perhaps it can be expanded to discuss said person more. At any rate, deletion seems like the wrong call to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:40, 28 May 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.

Sonic Chrono Adventure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 29#Sonic Chrono Adventure

Sonic: Before the Sequel[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 unofficial Sonic media#Fangames. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. The redirect is not the subject matter of its target. It does receive some brief coverage in the List of unofficial Sonic media page, which could serve as a suitable retarget. LBWP (talk) 23:30, 21 May 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.

Kirby's Dream Land 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 01:12, 29 May 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. LBWP (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the redirects don't even make sense. 64 doesn't even majorly take place in Dreamland, and there had been many games inbetween the release of 64 and Return. If anything, Return is a sequel to Kirby's Adventure, if you go by the European name. (Though, it also should not be called Kirtby's Adventure 2 either) CaptainGalaxy 12:09, 23 May 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.

Gold Derby Awards[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! 03:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original Gold Derby Awards article was deleted in 2020 because they were deemed non-notable. However, this redirect was quickly created after the article's deletion. Since MOS:FILM#Accolades states that (generally) awards should be mentioned if they have a corresponding article, this allows the awards to be mentioned elsewhere despite lack of notability. I think people searching for "Gold Derby Awards" would reasonably be led to Gold Derby, so the redirect does not need to exist, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Corresponding page existed since 2016 in one for or another, so external pages linking to it is likely. Is a plausible search term and useful to have. The argument from MOS:FILM#Accolades is incorrect since a redirect is not an article, so this page does already not qualify. If people add the awards to other articles despite that, the problem lies with those edits, not with the existence of the useful redirect. Regards SoWhy 09:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The awards are discussed at length in the target, so of course this is a valid redirect. If there is some tangential issue perhaps the MOS could be clarified to say "(not including redirects)" or something like that. A7V2 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The target article discusses the awards at length, but it should probably be vastly trimmed; all of those sections are attributed to primary sources, so including such detailed analysis is probably undue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the target article discusses the awards at all, the redirect makes sense. And I don't see any reason why the target should not discuss the awards at all. Regards SoWhy 15:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is undue or irrelevant (I'm not saying it is or isn't) then it should be removed, and then the redirect could be deleted. But given that it is discussed at the target, of course the redirect is suitable. Redirects are not content. They just lead to content. A7V2 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 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.

Harvard bus tunnel[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. Jay (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a miscapitalization of a proper noun, and the redirect already exists at the proper capitalization at Harvard Bus Tunnel. We don't need a redirect from a grammatical error when the same redirect without the grammatical error already exists. I attempted to CSD G6 this, but it appears there's some disagreement about whether or not this is noncontroversial (I personally think it is; deleting grammatical errors that serve no unique purpose shouldn't be controversial), but since it appears it is controversial, here we are. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – The assertion that it's a proper noun is not supported, and it's in use by numerous Wikipedia articles that mention the Harvard bus tunnel. Deleting it would break all those links. And even when the capitalization of a redirect is wrong, we generally leave them to make linking attempts work. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is zero reason to delete this. Regardless of which capitalization is correct, redirects are cheap. We have {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically because redirects from capitalization variations are useful for avoiding accidental redlinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason to delete. This is exactly the kind of thing that people would disagree about/not be sure about whether the "bus tunnel"/"Bus Tunnel" part is a proper noun, but generally incorrect capitalisation is not a reason to delete a redirect anyway. A7V2 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 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.

Ytterbium dodecaboride[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Ytterbium dodecaboride

AlF[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 Retarget. WP:BOLD and WP:NOTBURO apply in this case I believe (non-admin closure) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably supposed to go to Aluminium monofluoride. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So just fix it. Why discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 21 May 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.

Big Bang Theory[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Big Bang Theory

Taking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Taking

List of Queens[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 without prejudice to further attempts to create an actual list of queens. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the target list only includes queen regnants and does not include queen consorts and queen dowagers, this redirect can be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment List of kings currently redirects to Lists of monarchs. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 11:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, historic bias makes that incomparable. Male consorts of female rulers are historically not called kings but female consorts of male rulers are often called queens. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading and because of the uppercase Q. When we have individual lists like how IP65 suggested, we can have Lists of queens as a WP:SIA. Jay (talk) 11:12, 28 May 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.

Barrier Islands of New Jersey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Barrier Islands of New Jersey

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_21&oldid=1090665709"