Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2023.

Current Political Issues of the United States[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 10:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not include a list of current political issues. If there is a such a list elsewhere that I've not found then these should be retargetted there. The first redirect does contain a list (dating from 2007) in the history which could be reverted to if there isn't anywhere to retarget and there hasn't been a consensus against such a list. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom, and since the first two redirects will require constant maintenance whenever their target needs to change, and the last redirect is a WP:REDLINK situation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first two would not need maintenance if the target was an article or section about current political issues in the United States, e.g. Politics of Spain#Key political issues exists but I've not found a US equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 2 December 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).

Funny jokes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 9#Funny jokes

Dodicurus era[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 23:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for PROD but that can't be used on redirects. PROD rationale seemed correct, original nominator's statement was I have no idea why this exists; never heard of a "Dodicurus era" and Doedicurus wasn't even from the Mesozoic Tollens (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Zach Varmitech Tollens (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dodicurus is a perfectly plausible (and not uncommon) misspelling of Doedicurus, but that is a genus of animals not an era. The only uses I can find of "Dodicurus era" are this redirect and an entry on pronouncewiki which scrapes en.wp page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:10, 4 December 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).

DeconstructionIsm[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. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo (note the capitalized I) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R with old history}} and {{R from CamelCase}} (with which I've tagged it). The first entry in the page history is by Conversion script indicating that this dates from the CamelCase era of Wikipedia and was the original location of the article now at Deconstruction (it was created at this title in January/April 2021, moved to Deconstructionism in February 2002 and then to Deconstruction in July 2003). Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not CamelCase. Deconstructionism isn't two separate words. That would only work if a valid alternate title of Deconstruction ism was. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a CamelCase redirect within the meaning used in the very earliest days of Wikipedia. Links were required to have two non-consecutive capital letters, so page titles needed to as well (otherwise they couldn't be linked to). All such titles were called CamelCase, regardless of whether they were a single or multiple words, see Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia and other examples such as AlchemY and AmericA. The usual convention was to capitalise the first and last letters of single word titles, why this was different I don't know, but it is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm… a question would be if anything links to that then. Also, does MediaWiki software auto redirect capitalization? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "links" link in the header shows links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, but does not (and cannot) show links from old revisions, other projects, the wider internet, bookmarks, offline resources, etc.
    MediaWiki will autocapitalise the first letter of a page title, and it will adjust capitalisation of other letters to match extant titles in some circumstances but not all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf (and per WP:R#K4). Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the redirect is indeed useless, it should still be kept because it's from the earliest days of Wikipedia, 2002. Such old history shouldn't just be erased. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 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).

Man Sudo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8#Man Sudo

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing

Romani people in Central Asia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8#Romani people in Central Asia

Biden recession[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am compelled to re-emphasize that neither the 2022 stock market decline, to which this redirect previously pointed, nor the global inflation surge to which it now points, are actually indicative of a recession. I realize that many believe a stock market decline or an inflation surge means there is a recession, but they mistaken, as the de facto official arbiter NBER has never declared there has been or is a recession. A Biden recession has never actually existed. Rather, there are some who have cheered for a Biden recession when none has actually existed, the data clearly show it, and I suggest Wikipedia is being gamed for political purposes with this redirect. The Biden recession is fiction and its redirect should be completely removed. soibangla (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Note the Redirect was not tagged until just now. I've also corrected the categorisation from {{R from ambiguous term}} to {{R from non-neutral term}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments in the last discussion from IsadoraofIbiza the Biden recession is a cultural concept and campaign slogan. it is not a technical term, and there is no requirement that it satisfy a chosen metric, such as quarterly GDP growth. it is a real phenomenon related to Jerome Powell’s quantitative tightening efforts. and Hut 8.5 There has been some debate over whether there was a recession in the US in 2022, with some right-wing commentators and politicians arguing that there was. There is a paragraph in [Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#2022] discussing this.. I can see no evidence that anything has changed since this was last discussion, and this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf if the Biden recession is a cultural concept and campaign slogan. it is not a technical term then it should not point to a technical article about the stock market or the inflation surge. rather, it should have its own article regarding a cultural concept and campaign slogan. economic illiteracy is rampant, with many people thinking, "oh my stocks are down, it's a recession!" or "oh my prices are up, it's a recession!" simply because one aspect of the economy is adverse, or even multiple aspects are, does not mean a recession. just because some right-wing commentators and politicians argu[ed] that there was a recession doesn't mean there ever was one and only buttresses the argument that Wikipedia is being gamed for political purposes with this redirect. a Biden recession is a myth fabricated for political purposes. this redirect is a disgrace to the integrity of this project. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't enter into this, I don't work that way, and I take personal offense to it soibangla (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC (and there's always a chance I don't) a Biden recession article was quickly created after right-wing media sources (led by The Daily Wire followed promptly by a pile-on by others) wrote a bogus story about a Biden recession, and others (including Elon Musk) quickly alleged the recession article had been gamed by editors to cover it up for Biden. in reality, there is evidence someone gamed the article in advance to fabricate a hoax that the Daily Wire could run with.[1][2] what a clownshow that was. that Biden recession article then went to AfD and a decision was made to redirect. that decision should not have been made, rather the article should have been deleted outright. so now, after Wikipedia editors were falsely accused of rigging the article to protect Biden, the end result is that we have a redirect that perpetuates a falsehood that there was a Biden recession. that original error in creating a redirect rather than an outright deletion should now be rectified. soibangla (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One last thing: the fact the Biden recession redirect points anywhere is a subtle affirmation to users in wikivoice that a Biden recession has actually existed. It has not. If it is a cultural concept and campaign slogan, then maybe it should best point to an article leading with "The Biden recession was a 2022 political hoax ..." soibangla (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the other participants from the previous discussion: @Jay, Pppery, JasonMacker, and InterstellarGamer12321:. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whether or not this was a recession is mentioned in target; no reason to delete. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 17:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not really a voter at the previous RfD of a week back, but I would say procedural close per Thryduulf as a premature renomination because the time to provide arguments was over. DRV is the forum for this. Jay 💬 17:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay Thryduulf I will say one last thing here, and then I will shut up and give up and go away: Wikipedia was gamed in a hoax.[3] I was very actively engaged in the matter literally before it burst into public view. I saw it coming, I was paying very close attention because this is what I do on such topics. I watched it unfold in real time. I knew what this was intended to do.[4] Because a false conservative media narrative went viral, someone reflexively created a "Biden recession" article that was soon found to be bogus. It went to AfD, but instead of deleting the article outright because it was a hoax, a decision was made to redirect it first to one irrelevant article, then to another. This should have never happened. Now, readers use the Wikipedia search box on "Biden recession" and lo and behold they see results, which they can reasonably construe means Wikipedia has affirmed there was a Biden recession that never actually happened. The bogosity of this entire matter cannot be overstated, and no one should need to go through any bureaucratic appeals process to correct this spectacular failure from the start. The redirect should be removed, and this has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rather, it has everything to do with Wikipedia being gamed from the getgo and a buncha trolls laughing until they wet themselves over how it all worked exactly as planned. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:RNEUTRAL. Wikipedia has content that explains what the term means, who uses it and why, and how others disagree with it and why. In other words they learn about it, which is exactly the point of looking something up in an encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contrary to what the nominator says, terms used in redirects do not have to be neutral (WP:RNEUTRAL) or factually accurate. Plenty of political commentators and politicians in the US have suggested that the US entered a recession in 2022, and a reader who types in "Biden recession" is likely looking for information on this. The target of the redirect discusses that debate and notes that the US did not enter a recession under the accepted definition. @Soibangla: your suggestion that I was somehow gaming Wikipedia for political purposes by suggesting this target is absurd speculation for which you have offered no evidence. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and don't make similar ridiculous claims unless you have some actual facts to back it up. Hut 8.5 20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hut 8.5 I had no idea who created the redirect and I did not intend to suggest anything improper by you specifically. I apologize for anything I may have said to create that impression. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no idea of who created the redirect then you certainly don't have any business accusing them of trolling. Hut 8.5 21:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 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).

File:Raat.jpg[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 Withdrawn -FASTILY 10:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very generic file name. More than one topic with this name, see this page and this for more. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the author deleted it, may this request be withdrawn. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 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).

Testing123[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. Similar redirects were mentioned for consideration but not formally listed, and no consensus regarding them emerged. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common phrase that people say into microphones to test if things are working all smoothly, so I don't see how this should redirect to the disambiguation page for Test. Similar titles like Testing 123 and Testing 1 2 3 have both been deleted as test pages with the former being salted. The only two "Testing123"s I know in mainstream media are a song from Barenaked Ladies' album and the My Little Pony episode from season 4 of the show. Retarget to possibly the former link, or delete this altogether? 1033Forest (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Should be kept, "Testing 123" e.t.c. is a phrase often used. My Little Pony episodes are irrelevant. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any possible targets will be offered to the reader through search. Since other plausible targets exist, we shouldn't be assuming where the reader wants to go. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's other things with a similar name on Wikipedia, I just discovered. Like "Testing 1-2-3", a Grey's Anatomy season 3 episode. "Testing 1,2,3" also redirects to Barenaked Ladies' album. Also there is Testing 1, 2, 3 (DH episode) but the title is not mentioned in the target page. This leaves us with only three pieces of media with a title like this. Would this be good enough to make a disambiguation for that title, or should we just delete? 1033Forest (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If relisting consider adding Testing 1,2,3 to this discussion. I think Testing 1-2-3 can stay for now as that's how that Grey's Anatomy episode's title is formatted. 1033Forest (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aaron. Wikipedia search is good enough to list the album and episode for this search term. Jay 💬 07:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and keep Testing 1,2,3 (even though it wasn't bundled) since that's exactly how the song title is written, which makes it plausible. CycloneYoris talk! 18:08, 8 December 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).

PvdA[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.

Retarget to Labour Party (Netherlands) and For Aosta Valley, respectively, per WP:SMALLDIFFS. I considered just nominating PVDA for deletion because all the items are SMALLDIFFS with each other, however figured PvdA or PVdA could plausibly be referred to as PVDA, but not vice versa. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget this are quirks that anyone using would be looking for a specific article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 3 December 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_1&oldid=1190566470"