Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

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

Kreekcraft[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 00:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the target article. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10: KreekCraft seems to be a prominent YouTuber/esports personality and there is probably enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to establish notability and create an article. Either way I do not think it is worth keeping this redirect because of the lack of information at the target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:23, 15 August 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).

Early dynastic iiia period of mesopotamia[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 Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)#Periodization. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "iiia" makes this a totally implausible search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:01, 12 August 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).

M City[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#M City

Crashstappen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Crashstappen

Alonsomania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Alonsomania

Incriminating evidence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Incriminating evidence

B.A.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#B.A.

Russian bond[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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian bond(s) just refers to bonds backed by the Russian government, whether pre-Revolution or post-USSR. They're briefly mentioned at Economy of Russia, but not to a degree likely to satisfy a reader searching for this term. I'm thus leaning towards deletion to allow for internal search results and as WP:REDYES over redirection to that page signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:EGG Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on set indexifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Set indexing sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague to be of any use without a good discussion of the general topic. I'm actually partial to the definition of "James Bond stories set in Russia". -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time due to still being somewhat split in consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Set index of the different Russian government bonds as suggested above. Maybe that can eventually be expanded into a broad-concept article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make Russian bonds (or List of Russian bonds) a set index. That way, the reader who searches up this specific, ambiguous term (though it is more likely to refer to monetary bonds), is faced with search results that comprise the set index and some James Bond articles to follow. Best solution IMO. J947 † edits 02:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly clearing the old log. A draft of the set index, or creation of J947's proposal would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:36, 12 August 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).

Batillipes acaudatus[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. A snowy summer day. ✗plicit 06:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is unhelpful – it just redirects right back to the species list. It could maybe be expanded, but other users shouldn't have to clean up after one user's unhelpful redirects. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every bluelink in Batillipes is like this, except for B. mirus and B. lusitanus. See also: this discussion. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Bundled. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the circular linking is a problem with the genus article, Batillipes, which shouldn't be linking these species. The purpose the redirects is to take someone searching for the species to the genus article as there is no species article and this is the most relevant article. While I think this is a legitimate use of redirects, I don't think it is particular helpful. The genus article doesn't provide much information, other than that there are other species in the genus, and someone knowing the scientific name of the species can easily search for the genus if the species isn't found. It would be more helpful if the genus article contained redlinks to indicate that there are species that could be appropriate subjects for new articles. So I support the deletion because redlinks would be more useful than the redirects. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Even if they weren't linked from the genus article, they would still be misleading, because someone searching the species name would be led to believe there was an article on, say, B. crassipes, when they would in fact be redirected to the article, which contains no useful information. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as noted by Jts, it's unlikely that someone would know the full scientific name of a species, the first part of which is just the name of the genus anyways, and find no information on the species and be unable to find the genus. As all of these species are listed at Batillipes, the internal search functionality of wikipedia would show Batillipes for any of them as they are all listed there. Having the species without articles on Batillipes listed as red links also encourages article creation per WP:REDYES. TartarTorte 14:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No information is contained at the target article beyond the species name and taxonomic authority. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not at all helpful for navigation, and the circular links are bad for WP. - Donald Albury 16:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this feels kinda like a WP:IAR case to me (policy seems like it'd be for keeping the bluelinks), but I have to agree they serve much more utility as redlinks. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. Misleading bluelinks are not good for anyone. A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Blue (circular) redirects from links on the genus page would otherwise give the impression that these articles already exist. Please eliminate with extreme prejudice. Loopy30 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 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).

Talk:Zionism, race and genetics/Archive 2[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 Tagged with G7. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken archive created, needs to be deleted for the bot to work. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G6. Uncontroversial deletion for technical reason. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also ber WP:G7, since the creator of the redirect is requesting it be deleted, and nobody else has made changes to it. I've added a speedy tag thusly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:46, 12 August 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).

Garrett Nelson[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 00:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not redirect players to single-season team articles in the football project. Additionally, he now plays for the Miami Dolphins so redirecting to the 2022 Nebraska Cornhuskers makes even less sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 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).

Eternal death[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Eternal death

Mixed Latin and Greek/Cyrillic scripts, A[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 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red = Cyrillic; Pink = Greek

All are mixes of Latin + other scripts. Unlikely search terms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If my move without redirect suggestions are holding this up in any way, go ahead and delete; credit can be given to the original authors in an edit summary, even if I prefer keeping the original history. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving preserves the edit history Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the July 5 logpage. Which ones should we keep or move, and which ones should we delete? (And is this discussion still actionably closeable, or is it becoming a trainwreck?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is closable, just there hasn't been much discussion after my analysis of which ones were actually in use. I don't think anyone's voted !keep on anything I said !delete for. There just haven't been many comments that make a stand versus other comments here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 August 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).

List of monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya![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. I did not find the arguments to keep or send to AFD particularly compelling, as there is not sufficient evidence to suggest this unsourced content was merged into an article. This relieves the attribution aspect, leaving "delete" as the best option here. ✗plicit 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no monsters from Kirby: Right Back at Ya! on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is marked as R from merge, and has a history. It needs to be preserved for attribution purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: All merged content was removed from the article a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generic list of monsters, none of this content is fit to merge or retain in the target article. It would be understandable if ANY of it were sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Headbomb. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Headbomb: @Tcr25: None of the merged content is currently in use. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to WP:AFD per the above split consensus in order to give te content hiding in the history of this redirect a proper sendoff. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the redirect is inappropriate kept as-is due to a lack of monsters from Kirby: Right Back at Ya!. Because all merged content has been removed, there is no need to keep it for attribution purposes. The list does not stand a chance at AfD, restoring it for the purposes of deletion is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I can't find any evidence that a merge took place. If it did, whether later deleted or not, then as far as I know attribution is necessary. J947 † edits 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with J947 that no merge took place. The R from merge tag was added by Pokechu22 probably erroneously, in 2022, for a redirect (BLAR) that happened in 2007. The BLARer TTN did a merge to List of characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya! 3 minutes after the BLAR, but that content came from a different article Kirby: Right Back At Ya! Guest Characters. That might explain if Pokechu22 thought it was a merge-and-redirect and not a BLAR. The BLAR comment was ... remove unneeded plot summaries. Do to the "villain of the week" nature of the show, this stuff would easily be covered in the episode list. That is one editor's opinion. Restore and AfD to discuss what happens to the really big content. I wouldn't say it was unsourced. It had a source, and assume the whole of the list was based off that source. Jay 💬 09:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what happened was I went through all redirects that should have gone to List of Kirby characters but instead went to Kirby (series) due to List of Kirby characters temporarily being redirected. There's a larger than normal quantity of those (Kirby: Right Back At Ya! Guest Characters, Kirby: Right Back at Ya! Minor Characters, Minor characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!, and List of characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!) due to some old moving before merging. While chasing that down, I must have also seen the longer history on List of monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya! and assumed it was also merged in some way, but it's possible that's incorrect. Note that the same moving happened at List of Demon Beasts/Monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!; if the "List of monsters in Kirby" redirect is deleted that redirect should be deleted to. I have no opinion on this matter. --Pokechu22 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input and to close an old log page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't understand why we restore old articles and send them to AfD - under normal circumstances if deletion of an article can be processed through PROD if it has been uncontested for 7 days, and here the BLAR has been uncontested for 16 years which is clearly good enough. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this came to RfD after 16 years and expanded the audience 😌 Jay 💬 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except none of the actual arguments in favor of restoring are substantively arguing on the merits of the article content, or otherwise arguing that TTN was wrong to BLAR in 2007, so I'm still not convinced. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought my comment touched upon (but without substantively arguing on) merits of both - the article content and the BLAR. Jay 💬 07:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the July 5 logpage. Keep, restore and AfD, or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 00:42, 12 August 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_12&oldid=1171613128"