Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2023.

Ke Kou Ke Le[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#Ke Kou Ke Le

Cake box[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 Optical disc packaging#Spindles and other bulk packaging. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to ? - No other specific forms of box redirect here so I imagine there should be a better target somewhere, I'm just not sure where. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also fine with this alternative retarget. --Lenticel (talk) 07:20, 8 July 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).

God Save The King-Emperor[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 💬 09:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never an official title. The Monarch's former role as Emperor/Empress of India was never even mentioned in the lyrics, and the anthem was still known as "God Save the King/Queen" in India. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:23, 6 July 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).

National anthem of Tokelau[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 Te Atua o Tokelau. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Te Atua o Tokelau or Dabify - People searching for this are probably searching for the territorial anthem. But, at the very least God Save the King would not be the only national anthem of Tokelau as it is part of the Realm of New Zealand which has two anthems: God Save the King and God Defend New Zealand. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:22, 6 July 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).

William Abbot (martyr)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 14#William Abbot (martyr)

Radeon R800[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Radeon R800

Metric system baseball[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible joke redirect. Google search returns nothing. Has received 69 (nice!) pageviews in its whole existence, and only 2 the last 30 days likely due to a related RfD at Metric system Ostrich. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:18, 6 July 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).

Range of Delairea odorata[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 Delairea odorata#Habitat and distribution. Nominally no consensus between keep and delete, closing as a refinement, given that all keep-!voting editors appear to support refinement of the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Are we going to add "Range of x" redirects for every plant and animal? – bradv 23:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Delairea odorata#Habitat and distribution where this is discussed. A7V2 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a type of redirect we need or want, and not a likely nor required search term (searching for any expression with this species name will get you to the species article in any case). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral. This one isn't harmful as a sole redirect, and seems mildly helpful, but the use will be very low and mass-creating "Range of X" redirects seems like more of a net negative for the project. It's a matter of do we want to set the precedent that these should be deleted if they are created? I don't have a strong opinion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to Refine to Delairea odorata#Habitat and distribution. We can discourage creation without deleting the ones that do exist, especially since they do serve a minor net positive. Mass creation would be bad and would clutter up things, but this isn't mass creation, this is one specific redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in this case I lean towards deletion- we certainly don't need ultra-low-use "Range of x" redirects for every taxon- but for a few widely known taxa, this is a plausible search term. For example, I might lean towards keeping Range of African elephant or Range of poison ivy and so on. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per A7V2. This is one of those redirects where we shouldn't encourage the creation of because they have such low utility, but since it has been created we don't really have a good reason to delete because that utility is still positive. The article does clearly describe the range of Delairea odorata so it's not incorrect or misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There could be a redirects for every section of every article, but I don't think that is a road we want to go down. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Tavix. J947 † edits 11:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is too specific to warrant a redirect, and I agree that it represents a Pandora's box. The best way to discourage creation is to delete the examples that set the precedent for further creation, not tolerate them until the problem has already grown.
    A search of "range of [binomial name]" invariably brings up the relevant article on the first page, usually as the first result (when the binomial name is also the article title, as is the case here). I would only lean towards keeping in cases where a species name is ambiguous with other topics, resulting in too many irrelevant search results. This is unlikely to ever be the case with binomial nomenclature, but perhaps it could be an issue with common names. – Scyrme (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is "the problem"? J947 † edits 08:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:PANDORA. Not sure how what I said wasn't clear. The more of these exist, the stronger the precedent for creating more; that is, the problem grows as the figurative Pandora's box opens more and more. Do you not agree that we shouldn't encourage the creation of these redirects? – Scyrme (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Refine The range of Delairea odorata is discussed at the target, hence a redirect makes sense. I find the argument for deletion entirely unconvincing - if someone wants to spend their time creating more of these redirects them more power to them! * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 6 July 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).

Vyacheslav Kolomiyets[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 💬 05:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently had to perform a page swap between pages due to subject mismatch. No evidence this person was ever called "Vyacheslav" nor is there evidence of a relative by this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless evidence of this being an alternate name can be found (the surname is also different but seemingly just a spelling variation so I don't have an issue with that part). A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 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).

Hopeh Incident[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 06:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was previously to delete this. It redirects to list of reported UFO sightings. The photograph was previously on that list, but has been long-removed. I don't see any sources that can say much more about the photo beyond its existence. Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 6 July 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).

ZPI extension[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 💬 05:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 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).

DeftPDF[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 💬 05:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer listed at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a mention briefly, added by the redirect creator BoldLuis then removed shortly after by Aoidh [1]. I have no opinion on the suitability of this for inclusion, but if restored, refine to List of PDF software#Editors 3 (I think that's the way to link to it), if not restored then delete. A7V2 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed per the article's edit notice; List of PDF software only includes notable entries that already have an article, so the entry is not suitable for inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah no worries, thanks. Delete this redirect then. A7V2 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – no other potential target either. J947 † edits 02:29, 10 July 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).

HTML padding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#HTML padding

Page handling[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 💬 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is not specific to Adobe Acrobat. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing to indicate that the term is specific the target and the target article doesn’t mention the term.--67.70.144.202 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 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).

Page scaling[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 💬 05:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is not specific to Adobe Acrobat. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing to indicate that the term is specific the target and the target article doesn’t mention the term.--67.70.144.202 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until content is added to a relevant article. I considered whether paper size or page layout might work, and while they probably are the closest thing to a good target neither of them seems to have enough relevant material.
    Paper size does discuss scaling, but, as the article itself notes, multiple pages can be printed on a single side of paper depending on the scale of the page. The topics are related, but aren't quite the same thing.
    Page layout mentions the scale of text and images, but doesn't mention the scale of the entire page (despite the dimensions of a page being very relevant to the layout; ideally the article would mention this topic, but at present it doesn't).
    The similar phrase page size exists, but redirects to the unrelated Page (computer memory). – Scyrme (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: way too vague. Veverve (talk) 00:16, 9 July 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).

White Mass, Rose Mass, Gold Mass[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#White Mass, Rose Mass, Gold Mass

Metric system Ostrich[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 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created with edit summary "See Metric system baseball". Metric system baseball was created six minutes later as a redirect to cricket. Leaving aside the appropriateness of that redirect, there is a joke there that make some sense.

"Metric system Ostrich" doesn't make any sense. Ostriches don't occur in any countries that use imperial units. I get a single Google result for "metric system ostrich", where it appears in string of keywords including "ordering prefixes of the metric system ostrich fern vs cinnamon fern". Plantdrew (talk) 00:43, 6 July 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).

Old Earth (Dune)[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 divided between deleting outright and performing some sort of merge and delete process (or keep outright) to preserve attribution. As there isn't any real consensus even as to which merge and delete option to apply, and there hasn't been a pro-delete argument that asserts that the redirect is actively harmful, as opposed to merely not useful, I don't see any viable closure other than a status quo no consensus outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 14:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any content merged is no longer in use, and the section is gone. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in some form as attribution is required. Article and merge. J947 † edits 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The merged content is no longer present in the article, so what do we need attribution for? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please point me to the policy that stipulates that attribution is only necessary for the present revision? J947 † edits 21:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947 There is no Dune section in the article anymore, nor is the Dune work mentioned at all. This is the problem, per WP:EASTEREGG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting to violate copyright? J947 † edits 05:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I blanket oppose moving article content into talk space, it misclassifies edits to articles as discussions. If we needed to see if Jesster79 contributed to talk pages, it would incorrectly show them as having created a talk page and having a few edits to it, when in reality they did not do this. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck. I didn't notice the last line of the essay section that said Therefore, this approach is almost never used on Wikipedia at present.. Jay 💬 06:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there is no extant information, there is nothing to attribute. Regarding the 2006 version of Earth in fiction, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of that page that states the following: This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. (my emphasis added). -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text needs to be somewhere. Incase anyone was curious, here's the earwig; the text 100% needed attribution in 2006 at the time of the C&P move, and currently anyone checking old revisions of Earth in science fiction may be stumbling across violations of Wikipedia's own copyright. If we had an {{R with unrelated history}} tag, I would instantly say "move without redirect to Earth in Science Fiction". I think that's still going to be my recommendation – it keeps it in article space, while also creating a useful redirect. (Quick question: Would anyone object to that {{R with unrelated history}} rcat existing?) Skarmory (talk • contribs)
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).

911 War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 14#911 War

Mass, Nuptial[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#Mass, Nuptial

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_6&oldid=1170518523"