Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2022.

Viserys[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#Viserys

Aerial art[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 26#Aerial art

Locally small category[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 and retarget.

These should lead to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Subobject#Definitions notes that "locally small" is ambiguous ("this clashes with a different usage of the term locally small, namely that there is a set of morphisms between any two objects") and indeed our Morphism article does use the term but I can't work out with which meaning. I'm surprised that the term is not ambiguous with something outside mathematics but it doesn't appear to be. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as explained in my separate comment. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who has worked in category theory for a bit, my impression is that the meaning given in Category (mathematics)#Small and large categories is by far the predominant one. While I have encountered -small objects for some cardinal very frequently, locally small (objects) are referred to quite rarely. If such ambiguity at the target of Locally small is intended, then one should add a reference to a locally small object to the glossary entry. Felix QW (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that that is the predominant meaning. PatrickR2 (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Felix QW: doesn't the glossary entry already have a reference to locally small object? Jay 💬 06:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 20:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure why you relisted that again. From the comments so far, people have suggested a few things, introducing other redirects, etc, which is is somewhat outside the scope of the decision at hand. But nobody is suggesting to merge the two links as the original editor was proposing. PatrickR2 (talk) 04:45, 17 October 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.

Joe Trudeau[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 Joseph Trudeau. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misnomer for the subject. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: This is a Spicerism that had some relevance in 2017 and less now, but I guess it's in theory a plausible redirect. Video reference: CBC TartarTorte 18:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TartarTorte. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget per suggestions below. Justin being "sometimes mistakenly called Joe Trudeau" is covered at that page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for a stronger opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:38, 15 October 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.

Foreign language redirects to Belarus[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 Respublika Belarus and Byelarossia; delete Belarussi, Belorusi, and Bielaruś.. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:FORRED foreign language redirects should only exist where there is affinity between the language and the target, but there is none between Belarus and any of Maltese, Slovenian, Catalan, Indonesian or Azerbaijani/Uzbekistani respectively. Although "Byelarossia" is tagged as {{R from alternative name}} I'm not seeing any uses in an English language context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Respublika Belarus, which wasn´t created as the Azerbaijani or Uzbek version, but as the official long form of the name in Russian, as given in the CIA Factbook or e.g. here. No opinion yet on the others, I haven´t looked at them so I don´t know if the nomination is more correct for those or not. Fram (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Respublika Belarus per Fram, transliteration of the official name mentioned in the article. Next best is Byelarossia, a transliteration of "White Russia" in Russian. Others should probably go. —Kusma (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One participant thought 3 out of 5 of the entries should probably be deleted, and another participant didn't go through 4 of the entries. However both are in agreement that one of them should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:34, 15 October 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.

Тайфун Майсак[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#Тайфун Майсак

Cossart, Pennsylvania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 23#Cossart, Pennsylvania

Fox Baltimore[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 WBFF. Closing a day early under SNOW as a simple mistake correction. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The station redirects to an NBC station in Philadelphia,which means this redirect is misleading both ways. Danubeball (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to WBFF: WBFF is the Baltimore Fox affiliate. TartarTorte 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WBFF. Baltimore FOX affiliate which often
    calls itself FOX Baltimore. Also, this redirect was not properly tagged and still redirected to WCAU with the RFD message below, which I fixed. — Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 20:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WBFF per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WBFF posthaste. How was this created and left to sit like this!? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:13, 17 October 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.

7:46[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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus for deletion will form at this point. BD2412 T 18:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this redirect is necessary. The actual time was 9:29 and I haven't seen 7:46 used as a symbol associated with police like 8:46, so I don't see why this redirect is necessary. The redirect was created during the time when it was incorrectly believed that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd for seven minutes and 46 seconds. It is now known that the correct time was nine minutes and 29 seconds, as proven by body cam footage. It also isn't typically associated with police brutality like 8:46. 8:46 is commonly associated with police brutality and the murder of George Floyd, so that redirect is acceptable despite being a misnomer. The 7:46 redirect is a misnomer that isn't used commonly and should not be associated with the murder of George Floyd, and most people aren't doing so. I think this redirect should be deleted. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to have a bit of usage judging by pageviews and it doesn't seem like there is another target this is blocking, so there's no great harm in it existing. TartarTorte 16:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless, described. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems like an unnecessary redirect. Probably should be removed. Liesa Hicks (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #4:

    Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links.

    For months, 7:46 was considered the correct time.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible incorrect name. — Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 20:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasonably common error which is explained in the article. A7V2 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 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.

Dupont´s lark[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 to all except Anton Bernolák´s Chapel. BD2412 T 14:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible/WP:UNNATURAL; the properly apostrophised versions exist, and the pages were never located at these titles. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#List of Sao Paulo´s sister towns. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: per nom/highly implausible search. Thanks for finding all of these. TartarTorte 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Some of these redirects contain an isolated acute accent, and others contain an isolated backtick, instead of an apostrophe. The former, especially, does not appear on the QWERTY or Dvorak keyboard layouts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per the above reasons - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and above-why do we need these incorrectly apostrophized redirects when the correctly formatted versions exist? You also forgot Anton Bernolák´s Chapel, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 19:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sonic678 No, I deliberately did not include it per below. Also I have not nominated the ones past letter D yet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I forgot. I'll remove it. Regards, SONIC678 15:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anton Bernolák´s Chapel has some links from when I moved it. I'll take care of them. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Implausible hyphens. — Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 20:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Anton Bernolák´s Chapel (the lowest nominated redirect): This was the original title of Anton Bernolák's Chapel for 13 years, from 2007 to 2020, until it was moved to the current title. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4: You may want to remove this RfD from the nomination as it is not pages were never located at these titles. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the wrong ping. It was @Sonic678 who added it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:11, 16 October 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.

Tomm[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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 08:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to have a redirect to an acronym at this capitalization. I propose to delete this and move Tomm (disambiguation) here instead. BD2412 T 06:09, 15 October 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.

UNIHD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#UNIHD

Palindromes that link to Palindrome[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 notable English palindromic phrases. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some famous palindromes listed in the article, these are not listed there and have not seemingly been for a little bit. TartarTorte 00:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - seems there might be room for a "List of notable English palindromes" article, and if sources discussing these could be found then they could point there. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can these palindromes be sourced to any pre-existing source? Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see. I'll start a draft at Draft:List of notable English palindromes. BD2412 T 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, are these four palindomes cited in some source? Can't be notable if not cited anywhere. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Each one of them, if searched individually, turns up in multiple books. [1], [2], [3], [4], BD2412 T 21:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BlackholeWA. I think this is comparable to our existing English-language idioms. BD2412 T 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further examination, I find that lists of palindromes have previously been deleted from the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromes, though those have had issues specifically with sourcing. BD2412 T 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems reasonable to find sources that discuss specific palindromes and create an article on that basis. I am not sure what the content of the previous articles were, but if they were just lists of any palindromes# without context, then it makes sense that they were removed. There also appears to have previously been a list section in the "Palindrome" article that has since been edited out of existence, which leaves a content gap that a new article can fill if we can find enough examples of specific palindromes. I do think this is content that should be covered on Wikipedia in some manner if it is well sourced, similar to the idioms article. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have found about a half dozen good sources (and a few weaker sources) for palindromes, including for the four referenced in this discussion. BD2412 T 04:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Brilliant! I am looking at your draft and have no objections. Seems reasonable as plenty of palindromes have individual notability, and they definitely have notability as a grouped class of related phrases. I will !vote to Post draft article via BD2412 and retarget the redirects in question to it, as well as placing redirects at each of the other discussed palindromes that don't already have a page or target to point there. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to List of notable English palindromic phrases due to BD2412's draft creation, which mentions all of them. — Clyde!Franklin! 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the draft is officially good enough to move to mainspace, though I have some concern that it will immediately be nominated for deletion (even though it does not have the sourcing infirmities of the previously deleted versions). BD2412 T 22:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Link this discussion if it does, and additionally I am happy to argue in favour of retaining it. Wikipedia has plenty of similar standalone lists. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also take this discussion as evincing a consensus that this article should exist (properly referenced, of course). BD2412 T 03:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to List of notable English palindromic phrases. BD2412 T 03:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to List of notable English palindromic phrases per above. And consider this a !vote to keep if it gets taken to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 19 October 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_October_15&oldid=1118408882"