Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2023.

Landspeed[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landspeed is a 2002 auto racing film. The page history shows this used to be an article tagged for notability. This is now a redirect to List of auto racing films, where the film is not listed. GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Lenticel. This should never have been BLARed to a list article which doesn't mention this film (it didn't then and it doesn't now). A7V2 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally going to suggest retargeting to land speed, but that was a unsourced low-quality stub that I boldly redirected to speed since none of its content was actually specific to land speed as opposed to other kinds of speed. It may still make sense to retarget to speed, but overall I now think restore and send to AfD is preferable. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 16 January 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).

Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 23#Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)

Not even funny[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 per G3. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what this redirect is even about. It's possible that it has been intended towards a different page and Time in Russia was accidentally selected. Randi Moth (talk) 21:39, 14 January 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).

Variety of jacksfilms redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 23#Variety of jacksfilms redirects

Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the creation summary – I'm getting sick of people randomly, often incorrectly, quoting WP:NOTNOTNOW. If people want to play Top Trumps rather than present a valid argument, and crats have no intention of stopping them, this shortcut may as well exist. I think this is a valid form of expression, if not an effective one. Deletion ten years later seems harsh. J947 † edits 04:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 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).

Team Athenia[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 💬 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since List of Transformers: Animated characters was merged into Transformers: Animated in February 2022, this group of characters (?) doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:22, 14 January 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).

Suck cock[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be profane in nature Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 14 January 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).

Siege of Marinka[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marinka has never been sieged. Consider deleting Siege of Marinka (2022) too. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a {{R from move}}. The fact that the article was called a siege in the first place should show that it's plausible for someone to search for it with a siege. As the edit summary for moving it states, "Siege is only mentioned in one source, which has since been deleted", so at least some external sites erroneously show that it's a siege. This redirect also gets hundreds of views per day after the move, so it's obviously useful. In regards to it being incorrect, {{R from incorrect name}} can be added to the Rcatshell.
Siege of Marinka (2022) is also an {{R from move}}, but it has stayed up for less than a day as the page's name, so it's far less likely for someone to link to it, and indeed it barely gets any views. Deleting it would make more sense. Randi Moth (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randi Moth. No reason not to take someone to what they are looking for, especially when the result of a pagemove (WP:RFD#K4). A7V2 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 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).

Where's the d10?[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 snow delete. Salvio giuliano 08:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference that showed a relation between "Where's the d10" and the Platonic solid. The redirect is not plausible. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:19, 14 January 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).

John Mills (Kent cricketer)[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 English cricketers to 1771#1726 to 1750. Same article, but different section. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mills (Kent cricketer) in 2019. Recreated by a suspected sockpuppet of BlackJack - the original creator - although no formal link has ever been proved between the accounts. As a result I don't think this is eligible for speedy deletion so it'll need to come here. Let me know if that's not the case as there are, predictably, more of these. The redirect is unlikely and the subject is never going to be notable per the AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, this redirect is not eligible for WP:G5 since it was created by a sockpuppet master prior to the master being blocked. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - as I figured. I may have to formally link No Great Shaker to BlackJack to speed up such things in the future - there's no doubt, but it's getting the behavioural evidence together that's the time sink. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix section to List of English cricketers to 1771#1726 to 1750 (keep). No actual reason to delete has been advanced other than who the creator of this redirect was. This seems a perfectly good redirect, it takes someone to a brief biography about the person they are looking for. There are many other such redirects to that article, and I think all players without articles listed there would warrant similar redirects. A7V2 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome of the AfD was to delete rather than to redirect. The subject will never be notable - we know nothing beyond the entry at the list. A longer-term concern is that these redirects were used by a previous sockpuppet as staging posts to re-create articles with zero notability and in a pointy way. I like redirects where there's a chance that someone might be able to show notability. Having someone's name on two lists from 1744 isn't that imo. But, whatever - they'll probably be a handy canary call for the next iteration of the sock master Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not a requirement for having a redirect, indeed redirecting the names of non-notable people/things to a list on which they appear is a very common practice because it enables readers to find the content they are looking for. If redirects are repeatedly being converted to articles against consensus then the correct solution is protection not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The outcome of that AfD is of only minor relevance here. Certainly given consensus can change, it is not a reason to oppose a redirect now. And one of the largest uses on wikipedia for redirects is for subtopics which aren't themselves notable. There would be thousands, if not more, such redirects, and they are in principal supported by policy, eg WP:ATD-R. Given we have a list containing biographical about all of these players, what justification is there not to take someone searching for them to exactly what they are looking for? One could argue the list isn't notable (I'm not arguing that) but frankly it is your nomination and reply which seems pointy. This redirect is helpful to readers, and that's why wikipedia exists. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough - as I say, I am a fan of redirects, I just didn't consider this one appropriate. I'll not send anymore here and am unlikely to speedy any unless they're so obviously problematic. Thanks for your input - I probably am being a bit pointy, probably due to the abuse I've received on my talk page over the last year; thank for pointing it out; I'll back off. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:40, 17 January 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).

Coronation chair[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) CycloneYoris talk! 19:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be a DAB page. Plausible targets include Coronation Chair of Denmark, Chair of St. Peter, and any other chairs/thrones used especially for coronations. Would like opinions on if the British chair is a primary topic or not. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is ambiguous enough to merit a dab, then Coronation Chair should be redirected to the dab as well, and the article currently at the capitalized title should be moved to something like St. Edward's Chair (an alternate name mentioned in the article’s lead) or Coronation Chair of the United Kingdom. Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in theory, but there might be a plausible case to be made for "Coronation Chair" as a separate article per WP:DIFFCAPS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:37, 14 January 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).

Unpartitioned India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22#Unpartitioned India

FreeListener.com[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 now that it is mentioned at the target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This domain is currently for sale, and thus is not an appropriate redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: I have found that in trying to go through old sources when a webpage is dead, that wikipedia is one of the few places that tends to have historical URL information (generally in the form of unmentioned redirects). I do think there is a potential hazard; however, in having this redirect exist without in some way indicating that the URL is dead without violating WP:NODISCLAIMERS in the process. I can't see a great way to thread that needle, hence my weak keep. I think that it would be a bit awkward to shoehorn a mention of their now usurped URL into the article body and {{Infobox company}} does not have a parameter for something similar. I would feel more comfortable with my keep vote if there were a way to better indicate that the website was their website for informational purposes, but that as well indicates it has been usurped. TartarTorte 12:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for @TartarTorte: Would it be possible to append <br>FreeListener.com <small>(Former)</small> or something similar in the website parameter at the article and {{R from former name}} be possible to use for for the redirect? I get that it isn't a perfect suggestion, but it might work if the goal is to keep the redirect. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V I wouldn't be opposed to it. I think that's probably the best way to get around the problem. It gives a mention on the page which makes the redirect easier to argue for. TartarTorte 15:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. I have decided to be bold and add it to the article with this edit. Hopefully there will be no problems with how it is formatted. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me both on desktop and mobile. Informative, but not linking to it as an actual link is great. Thanks! TartarTorte 16:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: How do you feel about this solution? Jay 💬 21:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine to me. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 22 January 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).

Ontario, CA[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. If so many people are against the obvious solution, then what's the point? (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 12:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Should retarget to Ontario, the primary subject when it comes to "Ontario, CA". LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree/Keep – "CA" is the abbreviation for "California", while "CAN" is short for "Canada". In this context, it's clear that it should redirect to the California city, while Ontario, CAN would target Ontario. Failing that, it should target Ontario (disambiguation). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CA" is the abbreviation for Canada just as much as it is for California. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 04:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CA really is the abbreviation for Canada in ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, but I don't see that it makes a difference: city name followed by ISO 3166-1 abbreviation (whether alpha-2 or alpha-3) is an extremely rare format. E.g. Tokyo Japan is about 400 times as common as Tokyo JP in Ngrams. And on Wikipedia, Berlin, DE; Paris, FR; Rome, IT; and Moscow, RU are all red. In contrast, city name followed by US state abbreviation is generally more common than city followed by full US state name [1]. In short, though this is indeed theoretically ambiguous, I seriously doubt that anywhere near enough readers are searching for the Canadian city this way to displace the California city from WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a redirect to the current target, although a retarget to the disambiguation page is also justified. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 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).

CTW-31[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 21:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page should be deleted, because this callsign is not a legitimate callsign for the target, and no other subjects use this callsign. Bassie f (talk) 04:08, 14 January 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).

Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series)[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 Dolly Parton filmography. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused here – A 2007 AfD resulted with redirecting this to the 1996 TV film Unlikely Angel. But I can find absolutely no linkage between to two projects except for Dolly Parton – the 1994 TV series otherwise has a completely different cast than the 1996 TV film. So what to do here?... Because an AfD result kept the article as a redirect, it probably shouldn't be deleted. But it shouldn't redirect to Unlikely Angel. And the Dolly Parton article doesn't even mention this series, though Dolly Parton filmography does mention this series – So should this maybe redirect to Dolly Parton filmography instead? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant sources, for context: [2], [3], [4]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to go ahead an officially propose that this be retargetted to Dolly Parton filmography – it's the only article that even contains sources for the 1994 series. The current target, Unlikely Angel, has nothing to do with this TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 14 January 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).

Transwiki[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22#Transwiki

Katherine Agapay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Katherine Agapay

CTV-31[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 Broadcast Enterprises and Affiliated Media. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page should be deleted because this callsign is not a legitimate callsign for the target. Edit: I want someone to retarget this redirect to Broadcast Enterprises and Affiliated Media, which has a mention of the redirect, and not be deleted. Bassie f (talk) 00:03, 14 January 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_January_14&oldid=1135770400"