Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2022.

Color Line (Name of Line)[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 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguator includes the full name of the target article, making this implausible. TartarTorte 23:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all more nonsense redirects by everyone's favorite iPod on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:34, 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.

Jeff Brown (author)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Jeff Brown (author)

Double V[edit]

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

Jewishm[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 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo TartarTorte 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so - presumably created by a typo and then a move. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There were no comments on the retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree this is not a plausible typo and I'm not seeing any uses of the hashtag that are both prominent and out of context, so its unlikely that someone will be coming to Wikipedia to find information on it. If they do come looking for that though then neither the suggested target article or anything else I've found will help them particularly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 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.

Candle holder[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. (non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in 2013, "a search for candle holder redirects to this candlestick page. It’s true that all candlesticks are candle holders but not all candle holders are candlesticks". See examples of candle holders which are not candlesticks here, here and here.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Also, WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least the first two of these can be described as candlesticks - the first ones are actually in wood, as "stick" implies. A small Candle holder page or disam page could be set up, also covering sconces and people holding candles in religious liturgy etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, a DAB (along with an article about candle holders in general) could be helpful. Veverve (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Per Johnbod, it seems like this is a great location for a disambiguation. TartarTorte 02:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Also, Candelabra. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 10 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.

President of malaysia[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 Government of Malaysia#Head of state. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Malaysia doesn't have a president. Privybst (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork President of the United Kingdom was deleted 2 times, there are also other nominations for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Belize, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Canada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of the Bahamas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of the Netherlands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Jamaica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of New Zealand, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Australia. @Ficaia said that we're potentially reinforcing the mistake this way. Privybst (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If that's the consensus, so be it. But it seems to me that if someone is looking for the political leader of a country, it would be more helpful if we assist them in that search rather than deny them any kind of information at all. If someone makes an error and we provide an answer, how are we reinforcing a mistake, surely we are correcting the mistake. And I fail to see what value we provide by simply refusing any help - that is more likely to lead to more confusion and error, and another attempt at recreating the erroneous article because it doesn't already exist. As an example of something helpful, see Who is the President of Great Britain. SilkTork (talk) 15:43, 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.

Cinescope[edit]

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

SS Rochester[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#SS Rochester

Internet movie[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 Web film. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 11:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely/misleading search term. This would be like a redirect from Adult Film to Adult Film Database Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the term is very unlikely to mean anything without the third word ('database'), and it's not like we're trying to help someone typing out the full name and accidentally hitting enter - seems like an unlikely scenario. Side note: I don't agree on the adult film argument - there's no "internet movie" genre. EditorInTheRye (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Web film (where Internet film redirects) as a plausible misremembering of that term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 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.

Charles and Mary Beard[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 Move content from Mary Ritter Beard#Collabortions with Charles Beard to Charles and Mary Beard with attribution. Consensus of discussion is that Charles and Mary Beard is a probable search term for collaborations between the two authors. No prejudice to the Charles and Mary Beard article being taken to AfD. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very unlikely search term, and it's not intuitive for it to redirect to Charles A. Beard when there is also an article about Mary Ritter Beard. Graham (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. I agree (as did an IP editor in the page history) that it is not appropriate for this title to redirect to one of them, but the history indicates that there might be scope for an article about them as a couple as they seem to have collaboratively written at least two significant works in addition to writing individually. That they are joint authors of those works makes that it is plausible someone would search for them together. While that article was unsourced 2 minutes on google suggests it would be trivially verifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: per Thryduulf. As a redirect this has an WP:XY problem, so WP:BLAR seems to have been an incorrect way to resolve this. Similarly to Thryduulf, I have no opinion one way or the other if it headed to AfD after this is closed. TartarTorte 13:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mary Ritter Beard#Collaborations with Charles Beard. Yes, this would ordinarily be an WP:XY situation, but there is only one place where their interactions are detailed. This is a solid four paragraphs, much more than the stub proposed to be restored, and I do not see much room for expansion beyond this. -- Tavix (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is better content, but I think it would be better located at this title (that's certainly where I would look for it). I don't object to retargetting there, but I think I prefer restoring the article and merging the content from Mary Beard there (such a merge would need subsequent discussion if not much occurs here). I'll drop a note about this discussion to both article talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move content from Mary Ritter Beard#Collabortions with Charles Beard to Charles and Mary Beard with attribution: Per the findings above this has the be the correct thing to do. Striking my previous vote. TartarTorte 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 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.

42nd-91th, 96th-97th centuries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#42nd-91th, 96th-97th centuries

Talk:Major League Baseball Wild Card Game or Series[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 keep - this is a standard redirect per Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_from_moves . SilkTork (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftovers from a botched page move, and an unlikely search term because of its length. O.N.R. (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That re-direct was originally the page name, I had moved Major League Baseball Wild Card Game to, but was later reverted. I've no objections, if the re-direct is deleted. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why there even needs to be a discussion about this. If it's a leftover page from a previous page move, lets just redirect it. Skipple ☎ 05:24, 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.

Xanthocroi[edit]

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

Porn scanner[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 Porn[o] scanner, delete Naked machine. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These phrases do seem to have been in use to refer to the TSA's backscatter X-rays in the early 2010s, but none of them appear in the article and all are potentially ambiguous, so the redirects are likely to cause more confusion than clarity. My inquiry at the target talk page didn't reveal any enthusiasm for adding mentions that would make the redirects useful to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this mention (rather than use) of "porno scanner" in Revista de Derecho UNED of any help? --Kizor 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kizor: Looks like a good source to me – from the Google translation it seems to tick the box of mentioning the use of the term rather than merely using it. I wouldn't be comfortable paraphrasing from a machine translation but if your Spanish is better than mine and you'd like to add a mention I'd be happy to remove that redirect from the list. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 21 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.
Relisting comment: There are intentions for keeping Porno scanner (if a mention is eventually added), but no opinion has been given on the other two redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. If Porno scanner is kept, I think Porn scanner should also be kept as a very similar term. And I see sources that use "naked machine"[1], which seems like a plausible search term. I don't really see "naked machine" as particularly ambiguous – are there other plausible targets for it? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Naked machine" refers to a smoothie, a Japanese metal band, and a motorcycle without motorcycle fairing, among other things. We don't have any content on these in the encyclopaedia, but we don't have any content on backscatter X-rays that uses this phrase either, and it's probably more likely that someone searching for it could be looking for one of the other meanings than this one (which doesn't appear for me anywhere in the first five pages of Google results). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Porno scanner and Porn scanner per Mx. Granger, and delete Naked machine per nom's comment immediately above. CycloneYoris talk! 10:10, 12 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_5&oldid=1112031772"