Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2022.

Pilade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Pilade

Lizzie McGuire (upcoming TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Lizzie McGuire (upcoming TV series)

Z (upcoming 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem as though the target article contains any information about any upcoming films. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 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.

Yep-Nope[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. More google searching brings up some pages that mention this a euphemism for the haircut. There are also multiple spellings of this as redirects targeting the same page. Satisfied for the moment. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; cannot find any evidence it is associated with the target. A possible redirect target would be Yes and no, but otherwise deletion may be in order. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 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.

Andrea da Ferrara[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 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea da Ferrara redirects to Giacomo Andrea da Ferrara, an architect and friend of Leonardo da Vinci's, but he isn't known by that name whereas there are four artists called Andrea da Ferrara (all of them obscure) on AKL Online. The page title should be saved for one of those. Ham II (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article indicates he's known as "Giacomo Andrea" not "Andrea da Ferrara". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aza24 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 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.

Is It Fate?[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 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, unlikely to be DUE for mention (I'm inferring that this search term is the name of a web series). Delete unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both A search shows that both terms appear in the article Kim So-hyun, ("Is it a coincidence?" appearing in a citation description) but only as passing mentions. They're both fairly generic phrases, so as you said it's probably undue weight for them to be redirects, especially when they're not mentioned in the Web series article. – DirkJandeGeer щи 19:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patently nonsensical redirects. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:23, 7 September 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.

Bnuuy[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This spelling refers to a meme not mentioned at the target (at least per this crowdsourced KYM entry). Delete unless a DUE mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 1 September 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.

Nope[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 based on the lack of confidence in a primary topic to retarget to. No prejudice against opening an RM for confirming the film as primary. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope (film) gets 70,000 pageviews a day, Yes and no 200. 92.5% of clicks from Yes and no are to Nope (film). Too soon? Certes (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Certes: Sounds like this should be a move request per WP:PRECISE since Nope (film) would move to Nope? Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably should go through WP:RM per Steel but in cases where the status quo is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT some feel it better to determine a change in primary topic at Rfd. I support the film becoming the primary topic by moving the article over the redirect, but also would support initiating an RM to that effect. I also think Nope (disambiguation) should be created rather than just using hatnotes. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding that, yeah, I noticed that Nope (song) existed after I made my previous statement, but still ... this discussion seems like a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim, especially considering that Nope (song) was both not mentioned in the nomination statement and itself is a redirect to a topic that doesn't seem to be the most notable using the title "Nope". Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's consensus that Nope should lead to the film then it becomes uncontroversial to move Nope (film) to the base name. An alternative is to make Nope a dab – listing the film (primary by usage), "Yes and no" (primary by long-term significance) and the song (worth a mention) – which would be a matter for RfD rather than RM. (There's also a meme, but that may be a mere PTM.) Certes (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A disambiguation page would be good, only problem being there aren't that many "Nope" articles. If we were to add a link to yes and no alongside Nope (film) and Nope (song) that'd bring it up to 3, which might be enough. – DirkJandeGeer щи 21:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nope (disambiguation) has been created. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Two entries is enough for a dab, if neither one is a primary topic by both usage and significance. Certes (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the DAB to the base name, no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving either the dab or the film to the base title will make sense. I don't think the English word could be the primary topic with respect to long-term significance: it's not Wikipedia's job to be documenting the meanings of English function words, and a primary redirect like Nope -> Yes and no makes as much sense as a redirect like Yesterday -> Hodiernal tense. Uanfala (talk) 08:56, 2 September 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.

Bus garages in London[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. Both "oppose" !votes appear to be intended as arguments for keep. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination must be considered in the light of 73 other redirects created in the last few weeks for the same reasons and pointing to the same pages. An editor has created pages for London bus companies, which seems legitimate, but in an effort to bring inward links has created redirects for all the various London bus garages, pointing them to the company pages (London United Busways, Arriva London, Abellio (London & Surrey) or First London). They then attempted to wikilink from articles about localities such as South Croydon to the redirects, creating a confusing situation where it looked like there was more information on a bus garage, but in fact the redirect was about a modern bus company. Those links have all now been reverted because they were links to a redirect. We have a list article, List of bus garages in London but the creator has reverted at least one attempt to point the redirects there instead.

Given this background, my argument for deletion of these redirects is as follows, per WP:RDELETE (using the numbering from that policy):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. A search for South Croydon bus garage should return both South Croydon and List of bus garages in London, both of which have some information on the bus garage, including potentially historical information from London Transport days that will not be found in Arriva London;

2. The redirect might cause confusion. As per the attempts to link to the redirect from pages about localities that took the reader to an unexpected destination; and

10. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article. Bus garages are not generally notable, but plausibly some of them will be, in particular should they gain statutory listed building status, or if the site of notable events. They can also be important landmarks or areas may become named for them. This will not be true of all the garages, but is plausible for at least some of them.

I would suggest that redirecting these all to List of bus garages in London is acceptable but not optimal. In some cases the articles for the locations could actually contain more information on the history of the garage than the list (history of the garage in the context of the place), and the existence of the company pages also should be findable in search (current operating garages). As there is no single ideal redirect target, the redirects should be deleted.

As per WP:RHARMFUL, these redirects are novel, and with no extended edit history. Dealing with the situation now will not be harmful.

I will ask at AWBREQ for the other redirects to be tagged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of 74 redirects
Oppose: A redirect should point to the place where there is the most information on the subject. In the case of Stamford Hill bus garage, that is Arriva London#Stamford Hill (SF), not List of bus garages in London where it is listed, but has no text or cites. Same principal applies to the others. The reason that text on each garage is contained in the bus operator articles appears logical; they own them. The structure appears to have been in place for many years looking at the history of a few. If the redirects were just to the article generally and not to a specific section, or no mention of the subject then there would be a stronger case for deletion.
These type of redirects are not without precedent, e.g. The Heritage Fleet, West Croydon bus station and Victoria tram stop are direct to the relevant section of Arriva London, West Croydon station and Manchester Victora station. Teedcapex (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The operating company is not the most logical place, because they only own the garages now. Before Cowie/Arriva owned South Croydon garage it was owned by South London Transport, before that London Buses owned it and before that it was owned (and built) by the General Omnibus Company. Similar histories exist for all of them. If I were interested in the garage, I would not want to know about Arriva (although plausibly some people searching might). It is very plausible that someone would write a history of a garage (as, for instance, someone did here [1]) There is no one correct page for the redirect. The list article is probably the best if we had to have a redirect as the list page wikilinks to the company pages and the location pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I haven't checked all 74, but in the majority of cases which I have, the redirect is targeted to the page where information on the subject can be found. That is the purpose of a redirect, so these redirects appear to serve a legitimate purpose. For example, Palmers Green bus garage points to Arriva London#Palmers Green (AD), which gives a history of the garage going back to 1912. --RFBailey (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per others this is where the most comprehensive information on the garages is. I'm not convinced that this is where that information should be (because in many cases the garage pre-dates the current owner and will not unlikely post-date some too) but that is outside the scope of this discussion and the redirects should point to the place that currently best helps the reader. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 5 September 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.

Dighi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Dighi

Spaghetti Bolognaise[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 Bolognese sauce#Spaghetti bolognese. With hatnote to the studio album. Jay 💬 15:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for the content about the pasta dish, which I've since found at Bolognese sauce#Spaghetti bolognese, and was very surprised to arrive at an article about an album of music for young children. However I've not retargetted it boldly as the current target matches the spelling I used so whether to prioritise a partial title match or a misspelling. If this isn't retargetted I will add a hatnote to the pasta dish, if it is retargetted (my preference) I'm open minded about whether to add a hatnote to the children's album. For reference, Bolognaise redirects to Bolognese sauce, the lowercase Spaghetti bolognaise doesn't exist (an article, consisting only of two external links, was speedily deleted under A3 in 2006). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for this and I concur. I think "Spaghetti Bolognaise" should either be a) a disambiguation page (liking to both the album and pasta dish) or b) a hatnote on either. I am fine with either :) Tobyjamesaus (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom as {{R from misspelling}}. Create the redlink too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget but as {{R from alternative spelling}}: "Bolognaise" is the French spelling and also appears to be widely used in English (probably explains the song/album title). A Google search [2] reveals multiple uses of the "-aise" rather than "-ese" version (and not just French-language results, which included a rather horrifying Quebec recipe for the said dish but involving maple syrup!), including a commercial product from South Africa [3]. --RFBailey (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning disambiguate here. The pasta is the primary topic, but surely at least a few readers will be looking for the album. If consensus is to retarget, then a hatnote is needed IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget with hatnote as Presidentman suggested. QuietHere (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hat I do think the pasta is primary, but yeah, we should have a hat to the album for those who don't remember the album's entire very long title. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:27, 7 September 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.

Marvin the Martian (upcoming film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Marvin the Martian (upcoming film)

Monster Mash (upcoming 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 delete. Jay 💬 09:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target article doesn't seem to contain any information about any upcoming films or planned films. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A person in Georgia (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There was relevant information in the article when the redirect was created in 2020, but there isn't any now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 1 September 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 Formula (upcoming 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 delete. Jay 💬 09:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and not seeing any information about this topic on Wikipedia. Seems the presumed topic this redirect represents is an upcoming film which will also star John Boyega. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A person in Georgia (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not redirect films to a starring actor, since multiple notable actors might be in them and we cannot guarantee that a film will be more associated with one star over another. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 7 September 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.

Draft:The Queen's Umbrella[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 💬 07:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This target page was never a draft. The only content at this redirect is a botched WP:CUTPASTE move of the content from The Queen's Umbrella without performing a WP:BLAR or something similar on The Queen's Umbrella. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 1 September 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.

Billy Moore (disambiguation)[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 wrong forum. @Laterthanyouthink: You are proposing to make changes to either the target page and/or other pages, but not the redirect itself. If you wish to merge the pages, I'd recommend either discussing it on their respective talk pages, or proposing a page merge. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Bill Moore (disambiguation) which targets William Moore, where Bill Moores are listed. Either combine the Bill and Billy, or add them all to William (which is already rather long and unwieldy though). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:22, 1 September 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_September_1&oldid=1109327576"