Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2023.

Reign of Marcus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21#Reign of Marcus

2023–24 A.C. Monza season[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 23:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red link to encourage page creation. The redirect was created back in March, way too prematurely. Nehme1499 22:55, 13 June 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).

Template feature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 20#Template feature

Camilla, Princess Consort[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 refine to Queen Camilla#Titles, styles, honours and arms. This option has the momentum after it was pointed out that it's mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it was announced that Camilla would be princess consort seventeen years ago, that obviously is not the case now. This is an implausible (incorrect) and unlikely search term. Estar8806 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Princess consort#United Kingdom ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Since it was never used, it is, in my view, more appropriate to link it to information about the title rather than the intended holder. It's also most likely that someone using the term would be searching for information about the "Princess consort" title as anyone familiar with the topic would search her well-known styles: "Queen Camilla", "Camilla Queen Consort" or her birth/married names. Jèrriais janne (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this retargeting. Makes sense to direct to where there is specific discussion of this title/styling, rather to someone who never actually used it. SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – "Princess Consort" it has been at least five years since Queen Elizabeth II announced she wanted Camilla to be Queen. Unlikely many are searching for Camilla this way Ha2772a (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: redirects are cheap, and this is how she was expected to be known from 2005 until Elizabeth II announced her desire for Camilla to be known as Queen Consort in May 2022 (yes, 12 months ago, not five years). Rosbif73 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title wasn't adopted & there's been questions over whether it could've been adopted. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: has no major purpose, and hasn't been given one for a while, and it's entirely redundant now that she is the Queen Consort. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not harmful, the title was mooted if never actually adopted. Keep the same target, it has discussion of the title. Could add the relevant section. Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one's harmless. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The title was never actually used.98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{R from incorrect name}}, {{R from former name}}, some combo of those... It's certainly a valid redirect. Retarget to Princess consort#United Kingdom as a narrow first choice over keeping as is. J947 † edits 05:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per reasons by Zippybonzo and others IlkkaP (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Queen_Camilla#Titles, styles, honours and arms, which discusses the planned usage of the "princess consort" title. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nominator mentioned, this is the suggested title to be used. It would be ahistoric to think that it never was that term to be used. Thus it is a valid search term and a valid piece of history. Wikipedia is not just a newspaper, it also documents the past. The current form of address does not erase history. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By deleting the redirect we are not erasing history, we are merely erasing future that could have been. We don't have Queen Diana as a redirect either, although she could have been Queen had they not divorced. IlkkaP (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, by deleting it is a way to remove the history of the term, which was put forward by Camilla and others at the time she married, and carried forward in the popular press and popular culture. It is therefore a valid search term and represents an official position of her proposed title at a period of time. It is a significant point in the history of this person, that she was regarded as to not be the next queen, but to hold the title of princess instead. We have similar redirects from proposed film titles for films that have articles. This person the wife of a king, as a consort was to have held this title, and now holds a different one, so would be a similar situation. Unlike Diana, who died before ever reaching queen. This person, Camilla, did not die before achieving the position of consort to the king, so is different from the Diana position, who never became consort to the king. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely don't delete. It's a plausible search term and we have directly relevant information. I'm ambivalent as to whether Queen Camilla#Titles, styles, honours and arms or Princess consort#United Kingdom is a better target. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fact that this redirect has barely been used, with 45 views in the 12 months prior to this nomination, makes it an unlikely search term. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how that's an argument for deletion? Sure, it only helps that many people, but that still significantly outweighs the amount of harm the redirect causes. J947 † edits 04:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding was that if a redirect is barely in use, then it is okay to delete it. However, if you are saying that 45 views in the 12 months prior to nomination is enough to keep, then I will apologize for my mistake. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's your opinion as to whether that is helpful enough. Probably about average pageviews for a redirect, for the record. J947 † edits 00:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 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).

Russian bond[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3#Russian bond

I-55 Raceway[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 restore article. I wll leave it to Onel5969 and Presidentman to decide whether AfD is appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated to be deleted. This raceway links to a series that hosted an event there. It should be a red link, as a page should be created. Linking to a series that visited the track does not make sense. Glman99 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 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).

Windows 1.0 BYTE demo[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 Delete, G5. by User:Bbb23 --Lenticel (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for PROD by a user with the rationale "The original article had multiple issues with references and notability, also it only lasted for a mere 5 days, therefore the purpose of this redirect is rather questionable". Procedurally converting to RfD, as PROD states that redirects cannot be deleted via PROD. TartarTorte 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Not useful and not notable. Anyone remotely interested in this obscure demo would first go to the main Windows 1.0 article anyway. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:27, 13 June 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).

Vagonetto Decauville[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, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently-created Italian-language redirect to an article about a French minecart, possibly created in error through the use of the content translation tool. Speedy deleted previously (moved to draft and then speedied actually due to a misunderstanding) as a creation error. Tollens (talk) 17:12, 13 June 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).

Dispersal order[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 20#Dispersal order

Geographic influence of dietary trends on epidemiology of Hashimoto's thyroiditis disorder in US[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No info about the US is given, making this lengthy redirect even more pointless Fram (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of Fram nominating things for deletion due to Fram's deficit of WP:COMPETENCE. Much of the present information in our article is on USA populations. If Fram doesn't understand the sources then nomination for deletion is hardly the right place to remedy that. Fram has nominated a large number of these in 2 days and so it is difficult to respond. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term and the target section does not mention the US. Far too long to be a plausible search term: no one is going to be making searches of the form "Influence of A on B of C in D". 192.76.8.93 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't specifically discuss this. A7V2 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 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).

Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Fram (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject of heavy international media feeding frenzy. This is weak nonsense even by your standards. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me ask you a question, please: what makes a good redirect? J947 † edits 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @J947: I don't know how to answer this very big question. What makes this a very appropriate redirect is the large volume of WP:RS on this very subject. Some are news sources and some are scientific. Genetic analysis and therefore hard to read. Invasive Spices (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concisely: generally, what makes a good redirect is one that is a plausible search term. It is unlikely that many people at all will search up Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America, and in the extremely rare case they do they can access it easily from the search page anyway. Volunteer time is better spent on creating more plausible search terms – i.e., shorter ones, and those more likely to be made. Like {{R from shorter title}}, {{R from surname}}, etc. J947 † edits 00:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term, weird construction. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely implausible search term. A7V2 (talk) 11:01, 17 June 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).

Negotiating free trade agreements between the US and other nations involves screen quotas[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete random sentences from an article rarely make useful redirects Fram (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highly relevant intersection of geopolitics and finance however there is objection to sentences. (I have yet to hear an explanation of this dislike of sentences and this has not been expressed as the opinion of Wikipedia.) Perhaps Move to Negotiation of US free trade agreements and screen quotas? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, random sentences from articles are not plausible search terms. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Do not move a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 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).

Jewish passing as indigenous American[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 💬 17:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Passing (racial identity) has countless examples of X passing as Y. For some reason "Jewish" is singled out for a redirect. Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Eastern-European Jewish passing as indigenous American, created by same editor. Fram (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only thing that seems to be remotely related to this at the target article is this Jay Marks, a man of Eastern-European Jewish ancestry, adopted the pen name of Jamake Highwater about 1969, claiming to be Cherokee-Blackfeet, and published numerous books under that name. He won awards and NEA grants., but this is a very specific example that the article doesn't talk about in depth. This also is an arguably expensive redirect as it assume that this one small paragraph in a very long article will always remain there. TartarTorte 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify for its own article hence redirect. How is this different from other redirects? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
singled out for a redirect Do you really want us to believe this is the first time you've encountered {{R from subtopic}}, Fram? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not covered in the target article, ungrammatical construction. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. There's just a single example of this, no discussion of it (leaving other issues aside). A7V2 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 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).

Keren Everett's continuing missionary work[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of a sentence in an article, unlikely search term Fram (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common type of redirect. This large volume of nominations is a waste of time. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:51, 14 June 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).

Keren Everett studying Amazon languages[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of the "Person" "Job" type of unlikely redirects Fram (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very specific phrase and arguably incorrectly phrased. If this were to be used it would like be Amazonian languages, but also Everett, at least according to her wikipedia page, has only studied extensively one Amazonian language which is Pirahã. TartarTorte 04:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's correct but vague? How is this different from other redirects? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per TartarTorte and as a generally implausible search term. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 10:56, 17 June 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).

Roberta Marinelli examines seafloor biota[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Name" + "job description". A recipe for a few million redirects, if someone wants to boost their edit count. "Joe Biden rules the USA", "Novak Djokovic plays tennis", ... Fram (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common redirect. Edit count is not a reason to nominate. This nomination is a costly waste of time. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:56, 14 June 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).

Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis amassing bioinformatics data[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is ever going to use this as a search term? Fram (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEARCH no longer requires exact match and search engines make use of this. AI search makes extensive use of this. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly implausible search term. Seems more like a title for an image or something like that, why is it in the present tense? A7V2 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 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).

More research is required in social immunity[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not all sentences in articles should be turned into redirects. Fram (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to sentence format can be resolved by Move to Need for more research in social immunity. Sentence objection requires community discussion not piecemeal here. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Strongly strongly oppose moving the redirect as that is pointless, just create a redirect at the new title (or in this case, preferably don't as it wouldn't be suitable either). A7V2 (talk) 10:53, 17 June 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).

Class A felony[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 Felony#Classification by seriousness. ✗plicit 23:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are each used in several legal systems, not just the U.S. federal system. As Felony#Classification by seriousness shows, alphabetical categories are also used for felonies in several U.S. states (e.g. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Tennessee...). That section isn't a suitable target either, though, as it has the opposite problem, describing states' classification systems but not the federal system. I don't think there's scope for a disambiguation page as our coverage of how these things work at the state level is minimal or nonexistent. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 13 June 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).

Ethnologue 27th edition[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 13:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no 27th edition (yet), and not really useful as a search term Fram (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with everything Fram says. A pointless redirect to an article which doesn't cover the topic in question. JBW (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not exist yet. That is the reason it is a useful search term. Is the upcoming publication of this research/publishing group. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no 27th edition mentioned at the target. A7V2 (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not have specific edition articles or redirects for Ethnologue. An interested reader will go to Ethnologue to find what he needs, rather than expecting details of the 27th edition, and getting confused. Jay 💬 13:01, 20 June 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).

All metal[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 💬 13:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nonexistent term. doesnt have any purpose other than to confuse. initial page was created by a troll account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_metal&oldid=344235146 -- FMSky (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Target not synonymous with the redirect, nor is the redirect representative of all metal. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's findings --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is usually related to manufacturing (ie. "all metal construction"). -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could just as easily be entered by somebody looking for the information that's in Fineness, or even just Metal. No single clear target. Largoplazo (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, this is pretty confusing and pointless. --Joy (talk) 06:39, 18 June 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).

Wikipedia:INCOMPETENT[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 deprecate in the manner of WP:DIVA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut can be used as a personal attack - even unintentionally. See also wikt:incompetent. This should be deleted. - jc37 09:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deprecate and retain. I agree that this should not be linked in the shortcut box WP:CIR. Even if it is removed there, the shortcut itself has been used in a large number of discussions and therefore should likely be retained for historical reference as a soft redirect along the lines of WP:DIVA. Dekimasuよ! 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speaking of incompetence, the logs show that Jc37 moved the page without consensus and only afterward discussed the move on the talk page; the comments on the talk page universally opposed the move. It seems there are a few editors with hurt feelings and perhaps they've self-selected to leave this project. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per Dekimasu. The essay is certainly necessary, but we mustn't be plain mean about it by using this particular shortcut. J947 † edits 04:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and retain per Dekimasu: I agree that this could be used as a personal attack but we need to keep it because of its use in historical discussions. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate (aka convert to soft redirect) per Dekimasu: The consensus here is pretty clear, but nevertheless I wanted to chime in. Linking to this shortcut is possibly the worst way of responding to an editor with competence issues, and is ironic given that the essay explicitly advises against labelling people as incompetent. It isn't going to magically make the editor improve their skills.
I checked all uses of that shortcut, and I can conclude that:
So it's an obvious net negative. Don't get me wrong, of course I think that competence is needed to edit, and I actually agree with most of the essay. Well-meaning but disruptive editors can be a serious problem, but this shortcut is not the solution. Deprecation (like what was done to WP:DIVA) sends a strong message to people wanting to misuse it. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comment: I wouldn't oppose deletion, but it is not IMO better than deprecation, since it may lead to editors making pointy comments like "WP:INCOMPETENT should be a blue link".
Keeping this shortcut as deprecated has a higher chance of resulting in the editors who misuse it being rebuked for personal attacks. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If 80% of the uses of it are potentially negative, it seems that the benefit by keeping it for reading old discussions where it's linked to is negated by the potential continued usage of it. As noted above that WP:CIRNOT says not to call people incompetent, which is what this redirect is doing. It also seems that generally within the context of the use of the redirect in discussions that the meaning of it would not be completely foreign to someone browsing through those, but that's a judgment call on my part and I can see why others disagree and would prefer deprecation. TartarTorte 19:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What does deprecate mean in this context? Are people saying blank it, keep and tag the redirect as don't use, or.. what exactly? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I believe the proposal is to do the same as at WP:DIVA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhmm. J947 † edits 06:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I'm not sure what the merit is in deprecating it. To me, "deprecate", whether it applies to usage or a feature, means "deletion is planned, so no one should use it in new work, but we're providing a window during which it will still function to give enouogh time to replace it where it's already used". In deletion discussions, this result is usually characterized as something like "replace everywhere and delete", something that will be taken care of within a few days by a bot. There's no reason to place it in a deprecated state. Largoplazo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what is proposed. Set aside the terminology, which in this instance is perhaps closer to colloquial than technical use. J947 † edits 06:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect/deprecate per others. That seems to be a reasonable solution. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 18 June 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).

Gun politics in Indonesia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21#Gun politics in Indonesia

Zsuzsanna Budapest immigrates to the United States of America[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random sentence which makes for a very unlikely search term (and in present tense, no idea why). Creator has a penchant for such rather lengthy and unlikely redirect creations (e.g. Epidemiology of Familial Mediterranean fever in the United States of America which links to a section which doesn't mention the US, and where e.g. the first source is about the EU and the other three are general; or Survey sociolinguistics at the University of Delhi, or Perform survey at Taim Ecological Station). Perhaps some tailored topic ban should be considered, but this discussion is solely about this one redirect of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and indeed this seems like an issue for ANI. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just got finished deleting some redirects by this editor that Fram tagged that were so awkward, it started to remind me of Neelix. This is surprising as this isn't a new editor...but then, neither was Neelix. Liz Read! Talk! 14:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin deleted Film director responsibility for rehearsal in USA industry and Madeleine Albright surprised by her parents' Jewish ancestry. Just odd phrases that no reader will ever type into the search field. But maybe this is a discussion for ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 14:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Search hasn't Wikipedia:Article name search worked so restrictively in years, search engines use these and AI search makes extensive use of them. However there are objections to sentence redirects so I understand I can't prevail. I merely think it's a strange opinion. I hope this can be discussed in whatever (WP:REDIRECT perhaps) place would be appropriate.
I haven't heard of Neelix. I agree with Neelix that puerile does not justify deletion and that we need a wider ontology than some prefer. However Neelix's redirects were almost entirely truly nonexistent things. Mine are – no exception – all
real occurrences
mentioned in the target
with WP:RS.
They are mostly not {{R with possibilities}} but these all pass WP:V. — Invasive Spices (talk) 21:39, 15 June 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).

Paul Abdul[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where this redirect is coming from but Paul is pretty different than Paula. If there's any level of Keep I'll withdraw this nomination just ping me. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the redirect as I heard her name on the radio once and mentally put the two A's together. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides this being a misspelling for the target, third party search engines also return results for another musician named "Paul Abdul", as well as some character in the Indiana Jones universe. Probably best to delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because multiple other people have this name and this is not a common name for the target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first thing I would think after seeing this redirect is that it's a deadname rather than a typo, and that would definitely give the wrong impression. HotdogPi 17:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common typo. None of these other examples have articles yet. If or when they do Paula Abdul can be a hatnote. Invasive Spices (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so let's not pigeonhole readers into being redirected to Paula Abdul since it may not be what they are looking for and delete this per WP:REDLINK (promote article creation by leaving the title empty). Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 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).

Drovers (Fictonal Farm)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21#Drovers (Fictonal Farm)

Stuart McCormick (fictonal character)[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 00:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a plausible misspelling in the disambiguator, especially since the correctly spelled counterpart (which I created almost a week earlier) now exists. Also, this redirect doesn't seem to be getting very many pageviews nowadays, so I'm not sure why we should still keep this lying around. Regards, SONIC678 00:30, 13 June 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_June_13&oldid=1163112269"