Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2023.

Bittersweet (color)[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 Crayola crayon colors#Standard colors. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should've redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors if not notable enough for own article or shades of color section.2607:FB91:C94:C2EC:7CC8:6A2:19E4:32A6 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the main article about the color bittersweet will rather be on Vermilion than Shades of red, retarget to Vermilion#Bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk page of the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide the best primary page for bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't keep, because there's nothing to keep. Can't delete, because nobody other than the nominator (sorry, nobody has) has !voted for delete. Can somebody either put something at one of the suggested targets or provide another opinion on what to do with this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, casualdejekyll 19:11, 17 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).

Sickie[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. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These terms are not mentioned in either of the target articles. These redirects were discussed as a group in 2021, but no resolution was found. As it stands, the target articles contain no context about these terms, and in general, it is unclear on where exactly they should target, if anywhere. (For example, these redirects seem related to Sick, but that's probably an improper association as well.) For these reasons, I think these redirects should be deleted, but at the bare minimum I believe the redirects should all target the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget sicky sickie to absenteeism Dictionaries seem to define "sickie" as falsely claiming to be sick, so absenteeism is the more appropriate target IMO. See [1], [2], and [3] for example. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman: I'm assuming that you mean "retarget Sickie to Absenteeism"? Either way though, it's not really helpful for readers to be targeted to an article that does not mention or identify the redirects, given that the redirects themselves are not an alternative form or variation of the word "absenteeism". Without mention and per your explanation, seems the topic of these redirects could have WP:REDLINK potential as a subtopic of Absenteeism. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the catch. I could get behind a deletion per WP:REDLINK if there are enough sources for a separate article. A section in the preexisting one might be better though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's definitely sources for this (search for "chuck a sickie"/"chucking a sickie", it's common slang in Australia), but probably not enough for a standalone article. I don't think these should be kept without a brief mention. I'm not sure where in Absenteeism this mention could be added as there's no discussion of cultural significance etc. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 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! 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just Australian slang. It's international. Some dictionaries explicitly label it as British English, but as I understand it's common in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well. The more common phrase is "pull a sickie" rather than "chuck", at least in British usage.
I don't think Absenteeism is the correct target for any of these redirects as that article defines its topic as a "habitual pattern" of "unplanned absences". Most mentions of sickness/health in that article are not in relation to falsely claimed illness, but rather in relation to medical explanations for absenteeism (that is, actual illnesses as a cause of a habitual pattern of unplanned absences). "Pulling a sickie" isn't generally a habitual activity, but rather a spontaneous thing (eg. dodging work for a day to go to an event, to sleep in, or to sleep off a hangover).
Sick leave defines its topic as "paid time off", but I'm not sure that "pulling a sickie" necessarily implies claiming sick pay; it just means claiming illness as an excuse to not get fired for absence. (In-fact, students dodging school rather than work are also said to be "pulling a sickie"; getting the sick pay isn't the point.) That said, I'm sure many people do falsely claim sick pay, so maybe it's the best target.
"Sickie" is close enough to "sick leave" to not be immediately surprising to readers, but the problem is Sick leave doesn't actually mention falsely claiming sick leave, with the article currently only covering legitimately claiming it. There is a single passing mention of absenteeism, but it's in the context of noting that "presenteeism" (going to work when you are in-fact actually sick) is a bigger economic problem. I'm leaning soft redirect to Wiktionary, until relevant content is added somewhere. (That also seemed to be the direction the last RfD was heading, although it ultimately didn't reach consensus.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 8 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 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last ditch effort to get more comments, instead of closing as no consensus and just kicking the issue down the road another two years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, casualdejekyll 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikitionary, or maybe just delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think Delete all is probably the way to go here, per above. - jc37 21:07, 17 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).

Kathryn Sedgwick[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 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in redirect target, either now or around the time the redirect was created, and a Google search doesn't give me any idea what this could possibly be referring to. I feel like this redirect creation could have been an accident per the relevant contribs of the user who created it. I came across this situation after reading this news story that mentioned Michael Parkinson's interview with Meg Ryan. Graham87 17:28, 17 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).

Jiandi (disambiguation)[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 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yousong was a disambiguation page which I just turned into a redirect to Jiandi. But there was no actual disambiguation of "Jiandi" at the Yousong page anyway. Fram (talk) 10:07, 17 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).

Lane Train[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) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Could also realistically be searched by someone looking for Night Train Lane. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ambiguous, not useful. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a term in use (from personal experience as a college football fan), so I'd be inclined to keep without ambiguity. Here's a Sports Illustrated article using it in 2022. A 2017 use from SB nation has this quote: “The Lane Train” has become common verbiage for the entire Lane Kiffin experience. It probably warrants being included in the article somehow (I'll see if I can work it in), but it's certainly in use. I also don't think there's going to be confusion with Night Train Lane, and a hatnote could handle that. Whether this is useful enough as a search term is the question, but in the absence of a solid reason to delete, I lean keep for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skarmory. Confusing "Lane Train" with "Night Train Lane" seems unlikely. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless Skarmory finds a way to integrate it into the current target, but at present it is not mentioned in either of the articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not finding a way to seamlessly introduce it, but I probably can do it in a clunky manner. The structure of the article just doesn't really lend well for a sentence like Kiffin's teams are often referred to by the moniker "Lane Train", because it goes by season and there's no good place to put it. I'd probably put it at the end of the 2017 FAU season, because that was the year it picked up steam if I recall correctly, but that still feels a bit weird. There is definitely the material to include it, it's just about whether it can be fit in well.
    (Also, note: this redirect was mass-deleted under G5, but given the !keep votes, I requested an undeletion. See User talk:Garralaga#August 2023.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Skarmory's evidence of usage. "Night Train Lane" and "Lane Train" are too different to confuse. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above. casualdejekyll 20:13, 17 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).

Contemporary music[edit]

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

List of 99% Invisible episodes[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 restored article and sent to AfD as suggested. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged, and there is no relevant content at the redirect target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article. Kvng's redirect was inappropriate because the 99% Invisible does not contain a list of episodes. At 91kb, it would also be infeasible to merge. There is also a contested WP:BLAR from 2020, so re-blank-and-redirecting is also inappropriate from that angle as it is not uncontroversial. -- Tavix (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD: In a similar vein as Tavix above, it seems to be a contested WP:BLAR, and generally those are to be handled at AfD. I think it would be possibly out of process to delete the redirect this way; however, it is I believe a bit of a grey area on wikipedia as to whether or not it's completely out of process to delete a WP:BLARred redirect at RfD if the WP:BLARring is contested by one or more of the participants, but I don't want to get too much into wikilawyering. TartarTorte 13:30, 17 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).

Boxing (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. ✗plicit 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; other shorts named "Boxing" also exist, including one from earlier this year, so I imagine redirecting to the producing company of a 140-year-old film that doesn't mention said film would be a bit ASTONISHing to our readers. (Note: if kept, this should be linked to wikidata:Q16039787.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: misleading; exactly the kind of redirect that should be deleted with prejudice. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:17, 17 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).

Church officer[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, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense that way – in particular, as it suggests a spurious synonymity: a "church officer" can be any ecclesiastical office-holder, whereas ordinary denotes only a specific type of official. Hildeoc (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate or soft redirect to wiktionary. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A7V2, thanks a lot for looking into this. I now added these to the nomination above.--Hildeoc (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for the late additions which were also not tagged (I will add shortly)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find a suitably generic target since an officer (or official) of a church could be any one of a large number of appointments, so delete as an ambiguous noun modified by a common adjective. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An officer / official of a church can have one of a great number of related job titles, job duties, job expectations, and so on. I agree. This is too fundamentally ambiguous. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 21 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).

Auckland Throughbred Racing[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 deleted by Shirt58 per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created with typo. Please delete. Panamitsu (talk) 05:58, 17 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).

Rebecca Bettencourt[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. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person named in this redirect is only tangentially related to the target page. Redirecting her name to the mostly-unrelated project is more confusing than helpful. SnorlaxMonster 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is not confusing at all, but redirecting to a sub-topic discussed in the target article with which the person is directly related. Also, there are quite many incoming links indicating that we should sooner or later have a stand-alone article about the person, but until this happens, the target article can be used to collect information (in a single place, that is, rather than distributed "randomly" over many unconnected article) until the threshold for a separate article has been reached. Also, the redirects help to build infrastructure and aid reverse-lookup of related information. Once enough information has been accumulated for a separate article it will be trivially easy to change one of the redirects into the article and most of the infrastructure is already in place, instead of having an orphan and bits of information distributed all over the place. All this is among the very purposes of redirects per WP:REDIR. Several criteria per WP:RKEEP apply and none of the deletion criteria WP:RDELETE applies, therefore keep - this is how Wikipedia grows. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the reasons listed in WP:RPURPOSE are applicable to these redirects—the closest match would be Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article, but the article does not discuss Bettencourt or her work in any detail (nor should it, as she is not related to the topic of the page).
    Of the criteria in WP:RKEEP, the only criterion that could possibly be applicable is 5. Someone finds them useful, which is what you seem to be personally arguing; however, I think the existence of such a redirect is more likely to mislead readers than it would be helpful to them.
    Per your argument that "Rebecca Bettencourt" could theoretically be expanded into a distinct article, then WP:RDELETE criterion 10 If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. unequivocally applies. (I'm skeptical that there is enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability, but if anyone would like to attempt to write such an article, I would have no issue with that.)
    there are quite many incoming links indicating that we should sooner or later have a stand-alone article about the person The existing links to those redirects are exclusively in citations in which she is credited as an author (or otherwise in tables of various authors credited in documents), not actually discussing Bettencourt. But even if those links did provide that context, they could do so just as well as WP:REDLINKs, which would also be far more likely to encourage the creation of a page (if, as you stated, that is an important purpose of them). --SnorlaxMonster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no, REDLINKs rarely work, because they require that a single editor is knowledable enough about a topic (and is willing and has enough time) to write a whole article from scratch (at least to stub class) - this seldomly happens compared to editors adding bits to already existing contents. Therefore, a much better strategy to grow contents and longterm improve the quality of the project is to provide some initial infrastructure which helps that otherwise distributed bits of information will gradually accumulate in a single place contributed by multiple independent editors (in place and time) over a period of years or even decades. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it has no deadline.
The already provided information is more than "virtually no information" in my judgement.
There is zero point in the deletion of these redirects. It does not serve any purpose but only to destroy other editors' contributions, trash already existing infrastructure, make it more difficult for interested editors to look up already existing information and hinder the future growth of the project, as once deleted entries rarely get recreated. No good.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redirecting "Rebecca Bettencourt" to the ConScript Unicode Registry falsely implies that she is part of the project, or otherwise directly related to it, which she is not. She created a separate project which is not the subject of that page. The ConScript Unicode Registry does not cover Bettencourt in any meaningful way (it didn't even mention her name at all outside of citations until my recent edit), and only mentions her project in passing. Were the article about the Under-ConScript Unicode Registry, it could make sense to redirect "Rebecca Bettencourt" to it; however, since it is not, the misleading redirects should not exist. Delete per WP:RDELETE 5. The redirect makes no sense and 10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. --SnorlaxMonster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: SnorlaxMonster (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Procedurally invalid entry. You may add remarks but you must not "!vote" in your own nomination, that's an attempt to double-!vote, as you already !voted in your nomination.
Either case, your argument is invalid as well, because articles can (and very often do) discuss multiple related topics, because in an encyclopedia contents are arranged and grouped for being related not because they have different names (that's what redirects are for). Therefore, the sub-topic Under-ConScript Unicode Registry is perfectly valid in an article titled ConScript Unicode Registry, likewise any redirects related to this sub-topic.
To make it even more obvious where the Bettencourt redirects belong to, I have improved the links by adding an URL fragment so that they directly point to the Under-ConScript sub-topic, not the start of the article. Hope this helps.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the nom's double-!vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there can be more than one target, such as Athens (typeface), whose surrogate she designed, or List of serif typefaces which has info about her being the designer of Constructium font. Disagree that ConScript Unicode Registry could be the single place to start, enhance and split off the biography of Rebecca Bettencourt. However there was a Draft:Rebecca Bettencourt which was attempted in 2017, and which was deleted as expired, with no takers. Jay 💬 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay - and all of the targets he suggested, including the current one, have too little substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 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).

Rules as written and intended[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as written and intended

Rules as Intended[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as Intended

Rules as Written[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Rules as Written

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_17&oldid=1173305451"