Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2022.

Narrowing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Narrowing

Most-viewed page listings[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 Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views. Jay 💬 16:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to WP:Popular pages or WP:Statistics? Interstellarity (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:52, 4 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.

Autonomous zone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Autonomous zone

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/British Dark Comedy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/British Dark Comedy

Yen's Mom Is a Dirty Slut[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 G3. Creator indeffed for that stellar response, among other things. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not mentioned at the target (specifically, the word "Yen") and is likely to be an attempt at subtle vandalism by the creator. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for three seconds months ago and fixed it. That's pretty petty. BigOnAnime (talk) 19:02, 4 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.

2019 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#2019 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election

4570s[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 .45-70. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this decade should be pointing to a disambiguation page which includes only two things numbered 4570, and 5th millennium which redirects to Timeline of the far future. See below also the 236 decade redirects to the latter page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Given the (hopefully) likely outcome with the below redirects, this should not be targeting Timeline of the far future without a mention. I suppose it's possible this could target .45-70 as a plural but that seems a bridge too far. So then as there is no mention at target or anywhere this should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is not a decade redirect, it is a plural redirect. Tag as {{R from plural}}, since at lease one of the topics on the disambiguation page can be pluralized (the bullet) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that only one thing on the disambiguation page (.45-70) has a plural (and one, the millennium, should probably be removed), wouldn't it make more sense to retarget there instead? A7V2 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we could do that as well. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 4 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.

Orconectes australis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Orconectes australis

Orconectes hartfieldi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Orconectes hartfieldi

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church

Jaci Lavin[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 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned, and never has been, in this article. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete less than a dozen results on Google. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears this is probably a misspelling of Jackie Lavin, Cullen's partner. Currently, we do not have a separate article for her (the link redirects to Cullen's article as well). I am neutral as to whether or not this is a plausible typo for her. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo for "Jackie". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:11, 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.

31st-40th, 100th centuries[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These century redirects were once articles talking about their respective years, but despite their interesting histories the target doesn't mention them. Like A7V2 said over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 20#XXXIII century (which was closed as delete), they may need to be deleted and/or the previous articles restored, though I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget 100th century to 100s, as I could easily see confusion with the century encompassing the 100s. No opinion on the rest of these. BD2412 T 01:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a WP:OR rule, right? If there is something written and published on a century, great, but if not, why keep it?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that some people may think that the century going from years 100 AD to 199 AD, or from 199 BC to 100 BC, are called the 100th century rather than the 2nd Century. BD2412 T 02:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per BD2412, and add an entry on the target disambiguation page for the timeline of hte future -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, possibly create a new disambiguation page for 100th century as likely a confused reader mistyping. It's not strictly true that these aren't mentioned in the target article - in the timeline of the far future, I see mention of things both 1,000, 1,100, and 2,000 years from now, aka the 31st / 32nd / 41st century. Seems the most relevant article to redirect to regardless (even for "missing" centuries, if any events are added that take place in them in the future, it'd likely be this article), so it's useful. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except 100th. There is coverage at the target of a few of these, and regardless of that the target is as far as I know the only place on-wiki where these topics could ever be covered at any point in the next 1000 years. (I'm going to assume Wiki lasts that long for the purposes of this discussion.) casualdejekyll 02:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Casualdejekyll: Just out of curiousity, why "all except 100th"? There are a half dozen events on the page projected to happen in the range of 10,000 years. BD2412 T 17:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You know what? I'm not even sure myself. Changing !vote. casualdejekyll 17:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just delete the lot? Not just these, but everything from 31st to "101th" mentioned above on this page. The centuries up to the 30th are still linked to from Template:Centuries, so it makes sense to keep those, but is anyone going to be directly navigating to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35th_century for example? Only one actual Wikipedia article links to 35th century - Superman (TV series) through a pothole from the word "future" in "a hostile cyborg named Cybron who comes from the future" - surely it'd be better to replace that link with plain text, either "35th century", "future", or "future, specifically the 35th century". I would imagine any other article links to these centuries would be similarly unnecessary. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 19:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:03, 4 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.

I do not think that means what you think it means[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#I do not think that means what you think it means

Phi nu pi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Phi nu pi

Himalaya Mayflower[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 Himalaya Mayflower to Maianthemum#Species, Delete the other two.. Jay 💬 16:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of mayflower anywhere on the target page -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:R3/WP:G11. As noted by the redirects' creator in the edit summaries, Himalaya Mayflower is the name of a non-notable Gettr account. There's no good reason for promoting that account on Wikipedia. (Note that Himalayan Mayflower is the common name of the plant Maianthemum purpureum, but both of those are (obviously) redlinks.) - Eureka Lott 10:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some Google searches in Chinese, I still don't quite get what it mean, but it is apparently not a reference to any individual social media account or reference to any individual. I found a transcript of a video from Guo Wengui which claim to introduce the "Construction of Boston Mayflower Farmland" and claim its operation mainly consist of "Spreading the truth and revealing dark side of CCP to help construct New Federal State of China" and also "Use 'G-series' to provide economic foundation of our New Federal State of China" with 'G-series' involve things like crypto but also Gnews. After searching the term "Farmland" in "G News", apparently the concept of "farmland" is roughly similar to a lower level administrated unit in the proposed federation of "New Federal State of China" that aim to displace the power of CCP in China, but it seems to be virtual and operate over internet. Since many of the information they publish are infowars tier, I can't separate fact from fantasy in their claims. C933103 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first of these three redirects to Maianthemum where the Himalayan Mayflower is mentioned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish retarget Himalaya Mayflower to Maianthemum#Species per Anythingyouwant-it is mentioned there, so it could be helpful to take this course of action, but there's a redlink on the specific species as Eureka says. Delete the other two per Eureka. I'm not sure I can find a good target for Boston Mayflower (not even Mayflower, the first thing that came to my mind, surprisingly!), as it could possibly WP:ASTONISH readers looking for other stuff (e.g., the Mayflower, a non-notable company with the exact name that came up on a Google search), but for lack of a better option, I'll have to reluctantly go with deleting it. As for Himalaya Boston Mayflower, it just...doesn't make sense, I'm not really sure if it is true. Regards, SONIC678 03:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:09, 4 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.

93rd-95th centuries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#93rd-95th centuries

92nd, 98th-99th centuries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#92nd, 98th-99th centuries

101th century[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 💬 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While "101th" is a plausible error as argued in its previous discussion, this particular century isn't mentioned on the target article, the redirect's pageviews are going down, plus it was declined for speedy deletion over three hours before that discussion took place, hence why I've decided to list it separately. Not sure why we still need it-though I'm also open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 01:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is both incorrect and only barely mentioned at the target. One of those might be acceptable, but I see no reason to keep a redirect with two. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. SnowFire (talk) 19:46, 8 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.

41st century[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I'm nominating separately because of a different kind of interesting history-categories being added more than two years after its creation, which were removed several hours after. I'm not sure what to do here, maybe delete to encourage article creation? I thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss. Regards, SONIC678 01:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:08, 4 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.

Wikipedia:ElfCom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Wikipedia:ElfCom

Wikipedia:Bandity[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; if this once meant something, it no longer does. BD2412 T 20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. I'm not sure how this is related to speedy deletion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can only presume that it is meant to imply that either admins speedy deleting things are bandits or CSD is about dealing with bandits? However, it's not used and those would I think more properly be Banditry anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hut 8.5 17:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incomprehensible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It stands for band vanity and would correspond to WP:A7 which has {{Db-band}}. It looks like the word was thing in 2005 in band-related delete discussions. Used by Starblind, and then Brighterorange, Shauri, Celestianpower, during the discussions of Vioxx, Preteen, Scurge, Torpedo, Minesweeper, with Brighterorange saying the band vanity criterion for CSD was voted down. Jay 💬 07:10, 11 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.

Navy Information Operations Command[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Navy Information Operations Command

RAchel Costello[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#G6. The redirect was created when fixing an unambiguous error. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? I have no experience with type of redirect. Is it likely that a reader would type RAchel? Should there also be RAChel Costello? Or RACHel Costello? Or why not RaChel Costello? Or RacHel Costello? Or RAcHel Costello? Gaois (talk) 00:11, 4 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_4&oldid=1109986483"