Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2023.

2030 European Athletics Championships[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 23:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is too soon, the article doesn't say anything about a 2030 edition. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 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).

Internal market[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a left over from several previous moves, starting as Internal Market in 2013 (see also Talk:European_single_market#Requested_move_29_June_2016). As the primary topic is no longer called "European internal market", the present redirect should target Internal market (disambiguation). Incoming links should be rewritten as either Internal Market or Internal market (Europe). fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 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).

Ástor Piazzolla[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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that his name is ever spelled Ástor (with accent mark on the A). Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Here are quite a few books that use the spelling:[1]. –Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, my Google search (with the accent) wasn't coming up with hits, so I stand corrected. Please close as Keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:32, 14 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).

Skrullian Spymaster[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 Skrull#Squadron Supreme. Alternative to deletion; plausible misspelling. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on Google and the different Marvel Comics websites and I found nothing mentioning a Skrullian Spymaster. I am assuming that it's creator @Lowellian: must've mistaken this name for Skrullian Skymaster. @BangJan1999: told me that this would be the place to have this redirect deleted. If any of you support or object to this, please state it in this suggestion. Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Skrull#Squadron Supreme (like Skrullian Skymaster) and add {{R from misspelling}}. I also see no evidence of a Skrullian Spymaster by googling, only Skrulls and a Spymaster villain, but the redirect gets several clicks a year regardless (with no incoming links from other articles). Easily could be an uncommon misspelling. ― Synpath 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would one suggestion also end up redirecting the misspelled link to List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the event that the Skrullian Skymaster information is transferred to that page should the outcome be retarget? I'm just making a suggestion if the outcome of this discussion is retarget. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I wouldn't preempt a content move, but instead add a comment to the subsection telling a future mover to retarget the associated redirects. Unless there's some Wiki tech that I don't know about (I don't know many things) that warns people that they're breaking redirects, which would make the comment redundant. ― Synpath 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would you do that? While I would want to keep the Skrull's involvement in the creation of Skrullian Skymaster on the Skrull's page, the character was merged their by Namenamenamenamename without doing the usual consensus. I just wanted to let you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have found MOS:COMMENT and the related MOS:RENAMESECTION helpful. The latter lists three bots which may help, but I didn't look into it. ― Synpath 19:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • One of those bots was shown to handle broken anchors. I can't say if any of them might help right now. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm unable to discern from the above whether Rtkat3 agrees with retarget over their original suggestion of deletion (in which case there would be a consensus to retarget). Others' input is also welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I still want the misspelled redirect up for deletion, but the first suggestion turned into a consultation @Rosguill:. We still haven't heard from anyone else yet including the user who created the redirect in the first place as the notification is on that person's talk page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also bundle Skymax, the Skrullian Spymaster created by the same user on the same day. Jay 💬 13:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had no idea that the redirect you brought up was also created by @Lowellian:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling Skymax, the Skrullian Spymaster with the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 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).

Template:For2[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 Template:For-multi but wait until somebody has fixed all the existing transclusions to do so. User:ClydeFranklin has volunteered to take on the busy-work - I will leave it to them to do the actual retargeting. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 23:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used this redirect expecting a template which produced something like:

For foo, see bar. For baz, see foobar.

similar to {{redirect2}}. I seem to not be alone, looking at random transclusions they all seem to use this shortcut this way. In lieu of the template I mentioned earlier, retarget to Template:For-multi. (and if this is closed as retarget I can fix the transclusions with AWB.) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ClydeFranklin: IMO, given your rationale, I'd say it would probably be better to bypass the transclusions now since closers of RFD are not required to do any work in the "Template:" namespace, and to avoid breaking anything of the closer just decides to retarget the redirects without anyone doing the cleanup beforehand. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, changing the behaviour of this shortcut would break old revisions of articles for little or no gain. By all means replace this redirect by a more suitable template, but please do not break historical uses. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The rationale makes sense, and the reason behind the proposal seems sound. I don't agree with the belief that retaining template redirects for historical revisions is necessary since if we did that with any/all templates, no real progress would be made on Wikipedia; the nominator offered to do the heavy lifting and bypass the transclusions if the redirect is retargeted, which resolves the potential issues the most important article revisions: the current revisions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective ReTarget per nom. I think the older examples of For2, were simply due to it being the second variation listed for For. So for those, when fixing the links, replacing with the full name, would seem to be appropriate in some cases. So I think this calls for careful fixing. - jc37 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the transclusions first after which I support. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the transclusions first, then retarget per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I've used the for2 template a handful of times, for exactly the reasoning outlined above. I see now that I should be using the for-multi template. Fixing transclusions first, as others have suggested, seems appropriate. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix the transclusions; oppose retargeting; weak delete. I've done a fair amount of work towards cleaning up hatnote templates and created this redirect in the first place as a matter of renaming for clarity (see Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 7 § Changing hatnote template naming scheme to avoid numbers for context). Historically, we had a zillion wikitext-based templates with opaque numbers for different functionalities, and the "2" variants usually handled using custom text rather than making automatic wikilinks; {{redirect2}} is an outlier that I haven't poked much at simply because the effort-to-utility ratio is low (it could be replaced with uses of {{redirect-multi}}, but there are a few small behavioural inconsistencies between them that would need to be handled carefully). If we change this redirect, we should strongly consider making the same change to the other template redirects with the same pattern (see the earlier context link for a list).

    I'm sympathetic to Kusma's argument for preserving old revisions, especially in terms of not retargeting to a similar template with different behaviour, but I would also oppose extraordinary efforts to perfectly preserve old revisions. I oppose retargeting because it is preferable to never use this redirect; we should always use template calls that use names that are as self-explanatory as practical. I would prefer to simply delete the redirect so that new calls are not introduced to the opaque name, and it is more self-explanatory to see a template redlink in an old revision than to see a call to a somewhat-different template that might produce something nonsensical. On the other hand, I don't see it as necessary to delete the redirect, and not deleting it does come with the advantage of naturally preserving old revisions.

    I more generally support fixing the transclusions by bypassing the redirect, because that will result in calls to the current target template, {{for-text}}, being more self-explanatory to editors. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of what you have said is what I was trying (and I think failing) to refer to. I completely agree with your comments, except that I could accept re-targeting if everything was fixed. But it sounds like that delicate handling might not be possible in this case. If so, then I'd prefer "fix as possible", and just "deprecate" as much as possible, to discourage further usage. Or in other words, pretty much as you've noted above : ) - jc37 19:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give a chance to respond to late opposition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because taking any other action feels like a lot of busy-work without sufficient value to justify the effort. I suspect that this went unclosed for a month because no one was willing to do that work, as the consensus to retarget was (at that time, it isn't now) fairly clear. Since nobody seems to care enough to take initiative, let's just settle with the status quo. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ClydeFranklin: What were your thoughts about the Fix the transclusions first suggestion, or the last comment saying no one wants to take up the cleanup work? Jay 💬 15:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay:
    • About the "fix first" comment, I was going to, but forgot about it (and this entire RfD).
    • The "no one wants to do it" comment is patently wrong. Lord knows why this went unclosed for so long, but I stated in the nomination that if this is closed as retarget I could fix them. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

And days later nobody (not even ClydeFranklin) has done the retarget or fixed the transclusions. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Possible solutions of Covid 19[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 23:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of junk drafts were created about COVID-19, especially in the early days of the disease, and were redirected. As far as I can tell, none of the content in any of these drafts were used in the main article. If not for being redirected, these drafts would have been eligible for WP:G13 deletion by now. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 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).

Hittite Communication[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 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to equally refer to Hittite cuneiform. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Hittite language. This could refer to spoken language in addition to written language. It could also be deleted as ambiguous, but since the page has been around since 2006, it's probably safer to retarget it, instead. - Eureka Lott 20:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This began in 2006 as an unencyclopedic article; from the looks of its first version, it likely was a content fork from another article (Hittite Language article, prose about written language). The redirect name is ambiguous (spoken and written; cuneiform and hieroglyph). This redirect is not used and is not useful. It hasn't been since 2006. JFHJr (㊟) 22:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The weird capitalization of Communication, not a proper noun, also indicates this name space doesn't need to be a redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 05:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per JFHJr. I'd add that "communication" doesn't necessarily imply language, and there are many forms of culturally-specific communication which aren't language. Using "communication" would be an odd way to search for the topic of language, regardless of culture; the use of "communication" rather than more obvious terms like "language" or "writing" suggest the reader would be looking for something else. Even ignoring the capitalisation, this term seems hopelessly vague. – Scyrme (talk) 18:23, 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).

American Megatrands[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 American Megatrends#Technical problems. ✗plicit 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon misspelling, redirect not in use. Epicamused (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially if it's still in use as mentioned in the article, a WP:CHEAP redirect NotAGenious (talk) 16:23, 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).

Jesse John Fleay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Jesse John Fleay

Predacons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#Predacons

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_13&oldid=1173382195"