Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2023.

Gunjala Gondi[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 Gunjala Gondi script. It's WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue Gunjala Gondi script is the primary topic here; if not, the current target Gunjala Gondi (Unicode block) should be moved to this title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing the redirect to the script page. Absolutely oppose merging the Unicode block to the script page - the Unicode block page is fundamentally about the development of the computing standard, not the script itself. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 23:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget – I imagine Gunjala Gondi is a pretty common search term for the script, and overall it gets pageviews at a 3:1 rate of the Unicode block. Those may not be definitive (unclear where they came from, and Wikinav is being unhelpful and not showing the data I need), but at the very least there's a clear WP:PT2, and I suspect it's more common someone searching just Gunjala Gondi is looking for the script. A retarget to the script makes the most sense as such, and if that doesn't happen, a DAB page would be dramatically preferred over keeping the status quo/moving the Unicode block to the undisambiguated title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the redirect to the script article. Oppose merging the Unicode block to the script article. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:45, 6 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).

Alonsomania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 12#Alonsomania

Crashstappen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 12#Crashstappen

Dawn Apollo Films[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 refine to Lewis Hamilton#Other ventures. Content was added after nomination and no one participating in the RfD objected to a speedy withdraw. Refining for clarity to the Other ventures section where it is mentioned. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 13:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a company owned by Lewis Hamilton it is not mentioned on his page currently. Unless a mention is added to the page, the redirect should be deleted. TartarTorte 19:48, 5 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).

Eelam (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 Note that (according to the AfD) the content in the history is also in the history of Eelam so there's no need to do something else with it. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eelam (disambiguation) and Talk:Eelam#Dubious, the target page is not a disambiguation page, nor is it like a disambiguation page. I recommend the redirect is deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. Everyone who is looking up for "Eelam" will type 'Eelam' and arrive at a page of the same name. And if somebody is curious enough to actively look up for "Eelam (disambiguation)", they will find a page that doesn't disambiguate anything, but redirects to the main and only article named 'Eelam'. –Austronesier (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the closer on the AfD noted that the decision to redirect was made in part to preserve the page history, and I've tagged it accordingly. I don't think there's any harm having the redirect around for that reason. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete at this time, after two readings. A disambiguation title that redirects to a regular article is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The target is nothing at all like a disambiguation page. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 21:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Useless" is a strong word, but if such a redirect isn't pointing to an actual disambiguation page, it should at least point to something that looks like one (e.g., a set index). --BDD (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it qualifies under WP:G14. I do not know why Qwerfjkl tagged this as {{R to disambiguation page}} by referring a VPT thread when neither was the target a dab nor was the redirect the result of a move. At the AfD, Uanfala had made a procedural comment that there was no need to preserve the history of the dab (now redirect) page, as it was itself copied from the target. Jay 💬 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay, I used quarry:query/68885 to find redirects to tag. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Pinging Certes, the user the quarry query shows as publisher. Note that this is a parallel thread and not much related to my vote. Jay 💬 16:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless history is deemed worth keeping. The term "Eelam" can only reasonably refer to one topic. We have no other page to which a dab could usefully link, and there is no page to which this redirect could usefully be retargetted. The relevance of the Quarry query is that many (all?) pages it lists should be either tagged as R to dab or deleted, and in this case deletion seems the better option. The main argument for keeping the redirect is that it has history, which we should review before deleting (or not). Certes (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: really misleading and unhelpful. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:28, 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).

Baa Baa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Baa Baa

William A. Beach[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. Jay 💬 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created what seems to be in error. Editor seems to think that the individual they listed in this edit to another article relates to this individual, however the source material used dates from a news report from 1868, whereas the target of this article, William Beach (American politician), was deceased by 1860, therefore this individual cannot be the same person as the redirect title. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 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).

Ranch water[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 procedural close; redirect converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this after reading a recent Slate article that mentioned multiple breweries making "ranch water (a cocktail typically made using tequila)". There is indeed such a product described at the target page, but it doesn't seem a good target if the cocktail doesn't necessarily use Topo Chico. The only other relevant usage I found is at Karbach Brewing Company, which claims a "Ranch Water Original". (Plenty of uses about water supplies for ranches, but I don't think we need to worry about that.) This seems like a good case for WP:REDLINK deletion. BDD (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) *DAB This is the opposite of REDYES. As you say KBC also exists and thus search will not work. Additionally we do need to worry about water supplies for ranches. DAB these 2 with Farm water. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern is that I suspect there are other companies among those we have articles on that make a ranch water product. We'd be highlighting the two just because that's where we found mentions. Search results would be more appropriate. I suppose you're right about the agricultural usage, though. My ideal would be an article about the type of drink with a hatnote to Farm water. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 10 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 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of Farm water.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I suspect there are other companies among those we have articles on that make a ranch water product. We'd be highlighting the two just because that's where we found mentions. Every WP article has that problem. We can only cross build that bridge when we reach it.
My ideal would be an article about the type of drink with a hatnote to Farm water. If you BDD write Ranch Water before this discussion closes… Invasive Spices (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom started a draft after the last response of 26 July. However, the draft is at the redirect, and not at the capitalized Ranch Water as proposed by the only other participant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still hoping to get to finishing that draft. I don't see a reason to use title-case capitalization for it, though. If it's a matter of considering the agricultural usage WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Ranch water (cocktail) would be more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Invasive Spices:: I have finished my draft. If you're happy with it, we can close this. If you'd prefer disambiguation or different capitalization, I would suggest WP:RM rather than continuing to keep this discussion open. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is good. You've done the hatnote so that also obviates my DAB suggestion. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:34, 9 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).

Three faiths[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. There isn't really a solid consensus for any course of action, but even less for keeping as is (cf. WP:NCRET). --BDD (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely vague, this should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's no less ambiguous than Three religions would be. As a note, although this is probably intended to point to the three major Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) which are often discussed together, it's also a valid translation of san jiao (Three teachings). – Scyrme (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're undermining your own point. If three religions was a set phrase in English to the point it had a similarly clear PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be created and maintained for exactly the same reason. — LlywelynII 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. I didn't say that "three faiths" was a set phrase or that it had a primary topic. The entire point was that "three religions" is not a phrase with a primary topic, and I don't think this is any different. I don't see how anything I said contradicts that. – Scyrme (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason for you to create makework like this for yourself but regardless of what the words could possibly theoretically mean, this is in reality the COMMON ENGLISH PRIMARYSENSE of the term—do any Googling on the topic—and should be maintained in part for native speakers and maintained in part precisely because ESL speakers might otherwise misapply it to the sanjiao or other topics. (Note that Scyrme glosses their own term the 'three teachings' because, no, "faith" isn't commonly used for Confucianism or Taoism in the English language.) — LlywelynII 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confucianism and daoism frequently are in-fact referred to as "religions" and "faiths" in English, even if that characterisation of these philosophies is also often disputed.
I mentioned san jiao because it is in-fact translated as "three faiths" in many English-language sources. eg. Emperor Wu Zhao and Her Pantheon of Devis, Divinities, and Dynastic Mothers (2015), p. 4; Problematizing Religious Freedom (2011), p. 118; Producing China in Southeast Asia (2017), p. 99.
You can argue that Abrahamic religions are the primary topic, fair enough, but "three faiths" is not my translation of san jiao, it is one of several that are used in existing literature. – Scyrme (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Three teachings per above discussion. Scyrme has presented evidence of it being an alternative translation, so this seems like a more plausible target to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can also support this retarget, as a second choice after deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Abrahmic religions count more than 3; or retarget to Three teachings, as one of the bases of the Imperial Chinese state. Finally, just disambiguate for three beliefs / three religions / three faiths, if we can't just delete or redirect it instead. (ie. 3 Christianities (Orthodox,Catholic,Protestant), 3 Islams (Sunni.Shia,Ibadi), 3 Vedicist successors (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism)... etc) -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as first choice, retarget to Three teachings as second choice (I'm not convinced it's unambiguous). Do not disambiguate, as that looks to be an OR can of worms. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Evidence from contributors here shows it is in fact ambiguous. I've provided a draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A disambiguation page like this might become a magnet for tenuous/arbitrary groupings. – Scyrme (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Create as disambiguation page Seems like there are a number of reasonable targets. That said, a Google search has the first 10 items all refer to the Abrahamic religions in one form or another. That's a pretty strong indicator of what folks are likely looking for with this phrase. But a disamg page isn't unreasonable. Deletion doesn't make sense IMO in that A) there is an obvious redirect target and B) even if we decide there really is more than one likely target, a disamg. page addresses that issue. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate – I'll throw it on my watchlist to patrol if we're worried about bad groupings. Disambiguating like the best option to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist as I see potential for a consensus. Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target Three teachings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, since Skarmory has so generously offered to do all the antivandalism work for us; these sorts of set phrases can be a pain in the neck to search for. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:00, 27 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).

Belarusian Home Defence (BKA)[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. Rough consensus to keep; editors argue that it is harmless and those supporting deletion fail to present a policy based rationale to keep. However, retargeted to Belarusian Home Defence to address the issue of the double redirect. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect might cause confusion. There is no other Belarusian Home Defense with another acronym. Lucjim (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is significantly likely to add to confusion. You could think of it as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Moreover, while we wouldn't do this in a title, it's an extremely common construction in the body of an article to introduce an acronym or initialism that will get used later. However, we don't seem to employ it in redirects much, e.g., Israel Defense Forces (IDF), People's Liberation Army (PLA). --BDD (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and gets a small but consistent trickle of traffic. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget see below – what confusion could this possibly create? Harmless, and not an entirely implausible search term. (I would also vote to !keep the IDF/PLA redirects above if they existed, though it doesn't seem like a likely enough search term to warrant creating them en masse.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: harmless, {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unnecessary disambiguation though. It's a redundant acronym. A disambiguator (necessary or not) adds more information than is given by the title alone; information which may help distinguish one topic from another. The acronym doesn't add any extra information, it just repeats the initials. – Scyrme (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scyrme: But it's harmless. It's not misleading, offensive, damaging, or otherwise "bad". Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Given the hundreds of articles I've moved or RM-ed away from WP:Name (acronym) titles it's clear that people, for some reason, think articles should be titled this way. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:49, 21 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).

Various Comptes Rendus redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#Various Comptes Rendus redirects

Wikipedia:NOREFLIST[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. Added hatnote to the Help page. Jay 💬 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is ambiguous with Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references. Perhaps disambiguation is in order? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 28 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 target and Help talk:Cite errors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:01, 5 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_5&oldid=1173301522"