Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2023.

Matthew Heappey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Matthew Heappey

Various Comptes Rendus redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Various Comptes Rendus redirects

Yekaterina Alexeyevna[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 Catherine the Great as there is no objection. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 05:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Catherine the Great. They have the same name, but Catherine II is most definitely the primary topic. Couruu (talk) 15:08, 24 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).

Hare Hare (Jihyo song)[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 23:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Hare is a Twice song not a Jihyo song. Lightoil (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that I was the one that wrongly retarget it from Daniel Razon (which of course makes zero sense; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JaredLucas NOTHERE) to the current target without properly checking that it's a Twice song instead of Jihyo song. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hare Hare. Jihyo is a member of Twice, the "leader and vocalist" according to her bio. This is a plausible error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created as a result of vandalism, and I don't see this as a plausible search term. No prejudice against re-creation in good faith that is independent of the page already existing. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was probably vandalism when it was created as a redirect to Daniel Razon (its creator also made Daniel Razon's group -> Twice, and is now blocked) but it was since retargeted in good faith to its current target. Does that satisfy your "re-creation in good faith" criteria? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My line of reasoning is, "Would someone reasonably create this as a new redirect were it a red link, as opposed to now that it already exists (as a result of vandalism) and has to be pointed somewhere less damaging? The retargeting editor already expressed above that they would rather have it deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. My reasoning is that the error is plausible because the retargeting editor already made the error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should be categorised as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} if kept. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see this as a plausible search term either. --Random86 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. Implausible redirect created by a disruptive user. CycloneYoris talk! 23:25, 31 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).

Concho (decoration)[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 Concho (ornament). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This soft redirect appears to serve no useful purpose, given that the base form Concho is a disambiguation page with the same link to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yet it has fairly significant activity, for a redirect. Retarget to the dab page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We shouldn't be retargeting specific topics to disambiguation pages where they aren't mentioned. It's an R with possibilities, which deserves incoming links. What's wrong with the current Wiktionary redirect? --Paul_012 (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The dab does have "Concho, a round decorative piece of metal decorating a western saddle". They're mentioned a couple of times in that article including a direct Wiktionary link, but is that definition too narrow? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I've just gone ahead and created an article at Concho (ornament). Retarget there, obviously. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the newly created article at concho (ornament). Good outcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 25 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).

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 set indexify (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary music[edit]

In a similar vein to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_16#21st_century_music, targets a small subtopic and should be remade an article. But in lieu of that, what to do? J947 † edits 09:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per StonyBrook, or set-indexify if the content in the article history is deemed unsuitable for a live article. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set indexify to the various articles on the contemporary music scene -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set indexify the current target is obviously inappropriate. Given the enormous number of possible subtopics here, most of which are unrelated, I don't think an article would be able to give much more than a very high level summary and links to other articles, which is similar to what a set index would do (or what 20th-century music does). Hut 8.5 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is also the matter of what to do about Contemporary Music, a similar redirect. StonyBrook babble 15:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Contemporary music (or its target), I assume. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 September 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).

Rail Merger[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems really vague and ambiguous, could refer to any sort of merge between anything rail/train related, but especially in relation to company merges. No incoming links either. Fork99 (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion as I don't think a general article exists about this topic. A quick Google search for the term for me actually results in the relatively recent Canadian Pacific Railway / Kansas City Southern merger. Fork99 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with deletion. Rail mergers are most definitely not unique to MTR. Couruu (talk) 15:12, 24 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).

Reearthing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Reearthing

Landkreis Glatz[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 Glatz (district). Jay 💬 07:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect leads to the current administrative county of Poland Kłodzko, but Its name is Landkreis Glatz which used to be a German administrative division, and has its own article Glatz (district). We should retarget it to the correct article about the German district. Crainsaw (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - should the content of Glatz (district) be merged into the "Prussian rule" section of Kłodzko Land? And if so, would that make an appropriate target? I don't think the current target is appropriate as there is no discussion of the region's history there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Prussian (and German) rule in Klodzko spanned for centuries, while the Glatz district was created in 1742, and the article is also in line with the consensus of creating separate pages for former administrative divisions. See for example the pages for all the districts of Posen province.
Crainsaw (talk) 07:12, 25 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).

Cabling[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 Cable. Jay 💬 07:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cabling" used to redirect to Cable, a dab page. fgnievinski (talk) 06:33, 24 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).

🫸[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. Editors are split between keep, delete, and various retarget options. signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a disambiguation page is not a good idea. Without a proper target, removal is - to my opinion - the best option. The Banner talk 20:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The name of this emoji is "Rightwards Pushing Hand", there is also a "Leftwards Pushing Hand" emoji, "🫷", so the two should probably be treated as a pair.
If we do end up deciding not to keep the current redirects, then they should probably redirect to Emoji like the other difficult-to-describe emojis. Enix150 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:REMOJI says "Single emoji characters may be used as the titles of redirects, but they are often rendered differently – if at all – on different systems. Even so, such redirects are often kept if the character has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia, including those to disambiguation pages." Enix150 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now a redirect to a disambiguation page that says absolutely nothing about emojis. So in fact it is a redirect into nothing. Before you created the redirect, it was a red link that was more clear than this redirect/disambiguation page. The Banner talk 13:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not ideal, but there a few others like this, e.g. 🆙, 🆕. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Hand. That target is at least as relevant as Push, and has the advantage of having an actual article. Certes (talk) 19:41, 31 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 20:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both redirects to Hand where there is an actual article per Certes. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per Certes. Seems eminently reasonable to have these go to our article on hand rather than to a dab page when both are valid redirect options. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: anyone searching this on the enwiki search engine is only doing so to see what they get, and not doing so in any seriousness. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fine with redirecting elsewhere, but I believe that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. Enix150 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not a problem. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, that would make it the sole outlier among the thousands of emojis. Encyclopedias usually seek consistency in their coverage. Enix150 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no suitable target for a glyph of a square with "01F" and "RFB" written in it, and no idea why it's a redirect to its current target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an emoji, and should display as a stylized hand. Your browser isn't rendering it properly (nor is mine, for that matter). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, mine doesn't display it properly either. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The emoji will render on all operating systems using Unicode Version 15.0, the Unicode Standard released on September 13, 2022. Enix150 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A. Given the fact that these emojis aren't rendered on Windows systems, it's plausible that a reader might try pasting in the search bar to identify them. Directing them to hand does nothing to help. While the Unicode block's article doesn't lay it out clearly, the reader will at least be informed that the unrendered character is an emoji, and it's still possible to search on that page to find the code points and the descriptions. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A where defined. Failing that, keep. Push is okay I guess since that's the operative word, but the only relevant entry is to force. However, retargeting there would be even hairier; at least with push one can get some sense of what the emoji is doing. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 3 September 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).

Predacons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Predacons

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_24&oldid=1174242482"