Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2022.

Metro-1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Metro-1

Pilade[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) CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to dab. Drafted. In this case it's "Pylade" but it's ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 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.

Lizzie McGuire (upcoming TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Lizzie McGuire (upcoming TV series)

Marvin the Martian (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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the target section, the subject which this redirect refers was canceled sometime during the last decade, leaving this redirect inaccurate and misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A person in Georgia (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, this is an {{R from move}} that happened literally today. The title is inaccurate but we do need to help anyone who has linked to it to find where it is now for at least a reasonable amount of time, while what is reasonable can vary it is absolutely longer than the week this discussion will be open. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling this redirect an {{R from move}} is somewhat inaccurate, so an explanation of the whole story is probably necessary for other participants and the closer. This redirect formerly had edit history that has been moved to Marvin the Martian (cancelled film); the content hiding under that redirect was either merged or WP:BLARed to Marvin the Martin in ... 2010. Since the nominated title was a {{R with history}} with edit history that needs to be kept per WP:A/WP:CWW/etc., that is why the edit history has been moved to a title which represents the edit history accurately; this is akin to someone saying something like "move without leaving a redirect to retain the edit history" in an WP:RFD discussion (which happens from time-to-time), but instead already taking care of the edit history by moving it to a different title prior to making the WP:RFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943, especially in response to Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Steel1943. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment coming back to reevaluate this one, the page views tool is refusing to work if I specify any date before this RfD started (and views during it are obviously not relevant) so I cannot assess the utility based on that metric. I'm withdrawing my previous recommendation but not making a new one at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm able to see the page views. 86 pageviews from 2015, with not more than one view a day, except for 9 views on one day in Nov 2018 when the nom had fixed the redirect section title. No views in 2022. I would go for delete. Jay 💬 03:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "...one day in Nov 2018 when the nom had fixed the redirect section title" Wow, sure enough, I did do that. Dang, apparently this redirect was in my crosshairs almost 4 years ago, but had forgotten until now. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:22, 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.

Canada–Greenland border[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! 20:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The border is 1,370 meters long. This tiny island on the border is not an appropriate target, notwithstanding the border dispute that occurred there. MB 20:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's the only border between Canada and Greenland so it's unambiguous and it seems to cover the topic mentioned. TartarTorte 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the article title, this article seems to cover the entire border, probably because Hans Island is the only notable feature on it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is the border. (the land border at least, I don't think sea borders are frequently referred to as such) Funny dispute BTW. J947 † edits 22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two countries have no land border outside Hans Island, so the current target is correct. There's no ambiguity or lack of coverage for this border. Glades12 (talk) 06:12, 9 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.

King Charles[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 Procedural Keep. The move of King Charles to King Charles (disambiguation) was reverted, making this no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III of the United Kingdom does not appear to be the WP:PTOPIC for the term "King Charles" with respect to long-term significance, especially when compared to Charles III of Spain and every other King Charles to have existed throughout human history. As such, this redirect should be retargeted to King Charles (disambiguation), as the current redirect is inappropriate given the U.K. monarch's lack of being the primary topic for this term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the undiscussed move and restored King Charles as a dab page. A move request needs to be created if King Charles is going to redirect to the current British monarch. Vpab15 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the primary topic for King Charles in our day and age is the King of the United Kingdom, especially in the English-speaking world. A Spanish king from 500 years back can not change that.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was an opposed move; if you'd like it to point there, you're free to open an RM. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 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.

Dighi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Dighi

Computus[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! 18:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The computus refers to the general religious computation of time of the dates of feasts. See for example in the Catholic Church, Computation of time (Catholic canon law). The computus is a subject far broader than the calculation of the date of Easter, and it exists as separare articles on other WPs (see wikidata:Q245003).
Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted as it is misleading, and as per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Most Christian feast days are either on a date that can easily be found by looking at a calendar (for example, Christmas on December 25), or is a fixed number of days or weeks from Easter. So the only mathematically challenging computation is for the date of Easter. The calculation of the date of Easter has long been known as the computus. For example, Blackburn and Holford-Strevens state in The Oxford Companion to the Year (Oxford University Press, reprinted with corrections 2003, p. 801)

Computus is calculation, especially of the calendar, in a particular but not exclusively for the determination of Easter.

An additional reason for opposition is that the article had the title Computus for a long time and it would be confusing to remove the redirect. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for same reasons as set out by Jc3s5h. If there are other important meanings, then use a {{redirects}} hatnote. Or propose changing it to a disambiguation article. Deletion is the least sensible response. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jc3s5h. The main modern meaning and almost a synonym is the computation of the Easter date. This would only be an issue if there are other articles to which computus could apply. Are there? I'm not aware of any. Even then, delete would not be the answer per JMF's suggestions. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Computus" is mentioned in the lede and was the title of this article until 2021. As Jc3s5h, all of the movable feasts in the Christian calendar depend on the date of Easter. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:53, 9 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.

Alamo Mission[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) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main article should be moved here. Alamo Mission in San Antonio title is unwieldy and does not mesh with WP's manual of style. This is the common name and the name the article lead uses. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep: This should be a move request instead of at RfD, but I do support this in theory. TartarTorte 15:35, 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.

A Simple Heart?[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 💬 03:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created in error (see User talk:Jokestress#A Simple Heart?). Neither Flaubert's story nor the film based on it has been known by a name with a question mark, so this redirect is potentially misleading. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not per se author request, but author ambivalence towards deletion and no real arguments for keeping based on the linked talk page discussion. Creation for quiz bowl makes sense as to why there is a question mark that does not appear elsewhere at all. TartarTorte 19:51, 14 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.

P500[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#P500

Eurasian bullfinchs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Eurasian bullfinchs

Brahmastra (2019 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2019, and no incoming links from the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This had two different release dates in 2019 announced and publicised, that year was also when the bilk of publicity started so it's a very reasonable search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as there were verified attempts to release it in 2019, even those that didn't take. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:36, 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.

Fake abortion clinic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Fake abortion clinic

Breu, Joerg, father and son[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Breu, Joerg, father and son

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_8&oldid=1110864484"