Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2023.

-mas[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 redirect to Wikt:-mas. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, nonsensical. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to refer to the "-mas" suffix in English, which specifically originates from the Christian mass (the current target). There are some words that fit into this category, though the most obvious one is "Christmas". However, while originating from the word "mass", the suffix doesn't seem to specifically refer to it anymore, and so the redirect may not strictly be related to the topic and might be misleading. If it is kept, then it should be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry, however a deletion per WP:SSRT seems fine as well. Randi Moth TalkContribs 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other words end with '-mas' without this part being related to the liturgical practice, see here. Veverve (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ending with "-mas" doesn't necessarily mean being suffixed with "-mas". Most of the words listed in the provided link, if not every single one, end with "-ma" in their singular form, with the "-s" plural ending added. While they end with "-mas", they do not use the "-mas" suffix. People searching for "-mas" would primarily search for the suffix in particular rather than just every single word ending with "-mas", similarly to how the -s article only points towards the two English endings that consist entirely of "-s", rather than all words or suffixes that end with "-s". Randi Moth TalkContribs 12:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete …what? Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if there is no consensus at the end of the day, but that most votes are not for keeping, the redirect should not be kept as is. What is to be done (as of now, either soft redirect or deletion) is up to the closer. Veverve (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typically alternatives to deletion are preferred over deletion, so a no-consensus would likely mean the soft redirect, unless another alternative surfaces. Randi Moth TalkContribs 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support that, though I usually support the “common reader’s likely response” option first, which is why I voted “delete” as confusing. Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Vix Pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit[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! 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made up title, no mention at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Usury and Catholicism[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, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is broader than this, and has likely seen significant development in the last three centuries. Therefore, the target is misleading. Furthermore, WP:REDYES, so that an article (like one exists for Judaism at Loans and interest in Judaism) can be created.
Thus, I propose deletion, Veverve (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weird reverse WP:COATRACK— projecting nonexistent content onto the closest match to the nonexistent content. Dronebogus (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

L∞[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 L-infinity. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L-infinity seems like a more relevant target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Battle of Peshawar[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. wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such battle named "Battle of Peshawar" which took place in 1758. However, "Capture of Peshawar" did take place which is the existing title of the article. "Battle of Peshawar" redirecting to Capture of Peshawar (1758) may confuse our readers who may get misled to believe that such a battle took place. Therefore, this redirection should better be deleted. Dympies (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what to do with Battle of Peshawar (1758)? Ponken (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Bare urls[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, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary WP:CNR  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Also who knows if such a term will come to be used outside WP. And even though at times I have wished I could find WP-editing info through mainspace. But then that should be implemented consistently throughout, possibly by bot. Ponken (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suprisingly, there does not seem to be any encyclopedic mention of this anywhere, and this doesn't seem useful enough to mandate a CNR. Interestingly, this seems to have been nominated by a sock of the creator... {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The only mention I can find in mainspace is at clean URL. Retargeting there doesn't seem helpful to readers since it only mentions the term without explaining what it means. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:Obversion[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.
Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus You moved the article to @Jaredscribe's userspace. It didn't appear to violate WP:NOESSAY.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep and return to WP space: I don't see anything that can be even slightly construed as an attack. The essay merely proposes an alternative consensus process to WP:BRD. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake and got the namespace wrong on my first attempt. Larataguera (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess I might be promoting deletion of the redirect so that I can move the essay back. Larataguera (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this article in User space and returned the essay to its original location. I don't understand why it was moved without discussing it with the page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired[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.
Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An attack page disguised as an essay used to insult other editors; redirect not needed and the userspace one should also be nuked. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD be thataway Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RKEEP#4. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved this article back to Draft space. This seems to be some sort of targeted campaign against the page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf[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 no consensus leaning towards "keep". There is at least no consensus that there's anything particularly wrong with the draft in the history under the redirect. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDRAFT states that Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User attempted to overlay a humorous essay with an attack page; redirect doesn't need to remain and user is indeffed. Sometimes, rules should be broken. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is tantamount to grave-dancing. I don't really pay attention to the world of humor essays and have no idea what kinds of policies govern its content, but while it's a bit abrasive, it doesn't strike me as obviously disprutive (especially for humor, which often is rude), and it definitely doesn't rise to the level of an attack page. It's currently a redirect and not hurting anyone like that. Just leave it be. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Give it a rest. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Seems completely harmless. CycloneYoris talk! 21:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:Bold-refine[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.
Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus You moved the article to @Jaredscribe's userspace. It didn't appear to violate WP:NOESSAY.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
* Return to Wikipedia space: The essay had a few passages that were unnecessarily critical of established editors. I have removed those, and I don't see any reason to get rid of this essay. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake on my first attempt and got the namespace wrong. Larataguera (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess I might actually be promoting deletion of the redirect so that I can move the essay back. Haha. Larataguera (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Anatoly Kvochur[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 23:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK. Duckmather (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since the target is not an abandoned draft anymore. Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – {{R from move}}s like so should be kept per K4. There's essentially no benefit in deleting these redirects, and deletion harms editors trying to work out the chain of moves that occurred. J947 † edits 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Notwithstanding the fact that the nominator was indef-blocked as a sock, these redirects are all costly and implausible, and have zero links from mainspace. I don't see how deleting them would harm editors following the series of moves. In fact, I would even say that deletion helps this tracking – deleted pages show all moves that involved their titles, whereas for actual pages it's only possible to see the moves which occurred after their creation (in most cases). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as useless. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Blue Protocol[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 Bandai Namco video games#Blue Protocol. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want this page deleted because the redirect name is not mentioned in the target article. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Fire Emblem 17[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 16:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, see below. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It says it's the sequel to Fire Emblem: Three Houses, and that page says it's the 16th in the series. This is not a keep !vote for FE17 below, which could have other possible meanings. HotdogPi 19:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's generally considered the 17th in the series. The Fire Emblem series has always never been numbered officially, but it's a believable search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

FE17[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19#FE17

Userspace draft[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 no consensus. Arguments thus far show several editors in favor of keep or delete, respectively, with minimal prospect for reaching a consensus. Given that circumstance, and that the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, I think closing this discussion now without prejudice to future renomination is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded WP:XNR  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 12:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: unnecessary WP:CNR redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm usually very cautious in how a redirect meant to help editors might affect readers who see it (i.e., mainspace–somewhere else XNRs), but the term userspace draft near-solely refers to wikis, and obviously that is near-solely Wikipedia. Searching in the wrong namespace is a very neweditor thing to do, as is creating a userspace draft. Hence, there've been pageviews. Not sure what unneeded or unnecessary means in this context, but I think the plusses outweigh the minuses here. J947 † edits 22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per J947, this is not a believable article name or search term besides this purpose, so it seems harmless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: fyi, proposer is a sock. – robertsky (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects across spaces are bad. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22#User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Masacalla[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19#Masacalla

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_12&oldid=1151181662"