Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2023.

Draft:Symphonic Cinema[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! 01:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useless draftspace redirect that was generated from my non-controversial page move. Speedy deletion per R3 was contested, G6 was rejected. Merko (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep harmless, doesn't need to be touched. J947 † edits 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Consensus is that, while usually unnecessary, such redirects are harmless and it's not worth cleaning them up. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RDRAFT is completely irrelevant to the redirect in question. Merko (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, in that this redirect targets another page in draft space, but it will apply if/when the target is moved to mainspace (or will be deleted if the draft is deleted). Regardless, the same principle applies- this is an R from move and is harmless. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:49, 8 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).

Dee Gees[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 Hail Satin. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alias for the current target, but users are not served by bringing them to the top of that article. The alias was used specifically for the live album Hail Satin, which was its original target until an IP boldly retargeted it. Suggest that it should be retargeted back to Hail Satin where users will find the most content discussing the term. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retarget to Hail Satin. I missed the retarget, it makes more sense to redirect to the only album they used the alias for, which is what I did in the first place. Ss112 23:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hail Satin per nom. I think it would be helpful to also add to the lead sentence, something like "... using the stage/etc name Dee Gees" (with Dee Gees bolded per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT). A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 6 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).

Iron(III) carbonate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Iron(III) carbonate

Villa Guerrero, Coahuila[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title isn't mentioned in the target article and should be deleted. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 19:39, 4 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).

Srebrenica genocide.[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 04:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was apparently created by moving the redirect Srebrenica genocide to this title and then reverting, so CSD G6 may apply. Otherwise similar to the precedent in 2017 to delete Flag of the District of Columbia. with a period at the end to Flag of the District of Columbia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:32, 4 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).

MVV[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. Wrong venue, but cons is clear, so.... (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be moved to the disambiguation page, as none of the topics are particularly "outweighing" in notability. Mirrortemplar (talk) 18:26, 4 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).

Planet Zero (song)[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect when the song is the title track of the album. dannymusiceditor oops 17:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The song is described at the target, so anyone using this redirect will reach the content sought, until/unless a separate article is created for the song, which can then replace the redirect. Could be deleted per WP:REDYES, but given there is information about the song at the target, better to leave the redirect in place for now. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree under most circumstances, I offer a counter argument: Say this article's title never existed in the first place. Who would even know there was another to search for, given that this is the only one with any disambiguation? They would only see Planet Zero, not the song title, and that a disambiguation doesn't exist for a reason. This redirect is pretty much useless. dannymusiceditor oops 00:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. If there were an article for the song and there were no other use of "Planet Zero", then the article about the song would exist at the base name, and "Planet Zero (song)" would still be a valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect. If the existing content about the song existed at a different base name, say because it was on an album where it wasn't the title track, then this would the base name would redirect there, and this too would still be a valid redirect (albeit less useful under those circumstances). Mdewman6 (talk) 05:54, 5 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).

Cormac MacCarthy[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 Cormac McCarthy (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be sources that spell the 12th-century King of Muenster Cormac Mac Cárthaigh as "Cormac MacCarthy", including the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. It's not clear to me that either the current target or the article linked above are a WP:PTOPIC for this term with respect to long-term significance, though if I had to pick one, I would lean towards picking the King of Munster rather than the 19th Lord of Muskerry. As such, I think it would be best to dabify this redirect so as to disambiguate between the two notable Cormac MacCarthys. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:04, 4 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).

KSGA-LD[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 04:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a KJLA translator; doesn't deserve separate article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:55, 4 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).

Al Frankenstein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Al Frankenstein

Category:Test for category redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Category:Test for category redirects

Cult scale[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 04:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not mention any notion of cult scale, which presumably would be used to rank cults from benign to extremely dangerous. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the end: "cults being on the continuum, from OK cults that are benign and where you have informed consent, to the unhealthy, destructive" PuppyMonkey (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it implies that the BITE Model is meant to be a scale through which Hassan and others typologize cults, which isn't the case. Because of that, I think that "Cult scale" redirecting to it is a bit misleading. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and Jacquesparker0. Veverve (talk) 13:56, 4 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:M/R[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 04:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:M is Wikipedia:Mediation. This redirect has no plausible retarget, and the current target makes little sense. Merko (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the meetup was for 2010, so clearly useless now, 13! years! later! . -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current target makes perfect sense if you shorten "Meetup/Raleigh" to "M/R" as is common practice here. If there's no plausible retarget, I don't see the issue with keeping this redirect as-is. The primary objection here seems to be that WP:M does not redirect to Wikipedia:Meetup, but why should that matter? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as this is not the primary topic, and there's not a clear other primary topic for it. M/R made me think of merge and redirect, but it has many other possibilities. A meetup in 2010 would be nowhere near the list of common lookups for this though. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps WP:Move review would be a reasonable target, to match WP:MR? 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on IP's suggestion to retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no reason for anyone to expect this to point to move review, given that WP:M does not relate to moves. It's good for shortcuts of the format "A/B" to have "AB" twins when possible, but the converse is not true. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Move Review. I was initially thinking that this could also make sense for "move requests", but I see that's a dab at the top of the page at Move Review. So it all works out. - jc37 22:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:42, 4 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:JZG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Wikipedia:JZG

Wikipedia:RFZ[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 keep as nomination rationale voided. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 23:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what the abbreviation of the RFZ representative is, and he is not related to the target Q𝟤𝟪 09:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - RFZ, is likely "Request for Zs" ("Z" being equal to rest or sleep, as in a cartoon). So I think it's a plausible redirect to the page. - jc37 17:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was about to say the same thing as Jc37 above, as this likely refers to a "Request for ZZZ", and is not about a person (as the nom incorrectly implies). CycloneYoris talk! 20:53, 4 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).

Breach of the peace movie[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 13:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really close to the title of the movie, and doesn't have any pageviews for the past month so not really a good search term either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources to indicate this was a working title either or an alternative translation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:57, 6 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).

Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism[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 13:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, the capitalisaiton makes this redirect unhelpful. Second, this is highly misleading: the article does not state the schism was declared null, simply that the excommunications were lifted and that there is no full communion between the SSPX and the Holy See.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 06:49, 4 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).

WarII[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 13:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete nonsensical redirect. Google doesn't show affinity for Warcraft 2, instead it shows more results for WW2. Also "Warii" is a Japanese word "ワリぃ" and "ワリィ" (also used as the title of a TV episode) or "悪ぃ", which is a Japanese dialectal word in Kagoshima dialect ;; -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not entirely opposed to some kind of disambiguation but I don't think it's likely enough of a search term to warrant this. I'm having a hard time seeing how the current target would be the primary target though, even having read the previous discussion. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all, and confusion with World War II. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn't WC2. Searches lead to Wario AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:59, 6 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).

MasterChef: Dessert Makers[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 13:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highly implausible redirect which is neither a typo nor is referenced in any media when searched. Also, no incoming links to redirect. Happily888 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – unambiguous; existent typo ([1] 2). I realise those aren't reliable sources but they do indicate that this is a misnomer that could be made again. Certainly no benefit in deletion given. J947 † edits 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still potentially ambiguous, Adriano Zumbo's show referred to their contestants as "Dessert Makers" and I'm pretty sure one of the international versions (I can't remember which one) have already done a dessert season of the show before. There's little benefit in keeping the redirect, it's now even more highly implausible that a user would make this typo in future if searching for this series, especially with the higher coverage now in media. FWIW, the initial redirect creator also seemed to support the speedy deletion nom. Happily888 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. I'm not convinced this is ambiguous, and it does seem a plausible enough mistake. A7V2 (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Plausible misnomer indeed. Deletion seems pointless. CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 11 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).

GoT[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 Game of Thrones. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Game of Thrones as that is the primary topic for this term fairly evidently in my opinion. No other items mentioned on the dab page are referred to by this capitalisation. J947 † edits 02:28, 4 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).

Hottest life[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Hottest life

Degree of belief[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 Credence (statistics). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as synonym. Primary topic for this term. Mentioned at Bayesian statistics and Bayes' theorem referring to Bayesian probability, also. J947 † edits 01:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is not in line with WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, as I view the current target the primary topic for the term, I disagree. For me, all the first 60 external search results refer to the current target, or if not something closely related enough that the reader remains helped. Alternatively, retarget to Belief#Full and partial or Credence (statistics), which are more specific, or create a dab page linking these articles together. J947 † edits 23:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: I'm sorry to say but, still, this is not what the invoked guideline is about (cf., i.a., "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes.") Hildeoc (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hildeoc: is "quantification of a personal belief" insufficient? Would the validity of this redirect be significantly improved if I were to edit the article and alter that phrase to this precise search term? J947 † edits 00:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say for sure as I am not a professional. But you may ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics, for instance, if you want a well-founded assessment. Hildeoc (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a synonym mentioned at other articles per the findings from J947. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is not in line with WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Credence (statistics) as that is a better match for this search term. Bayesian probability is a slightly more specific concept, something like "probability interpreted as a credence". Alternatively Belief#Full and partial would work. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, retarget to credence (statistics). My reservation was that that article is fairly poor as it stands, but eh it's good enough. J947 † edits 03:38, 11 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_4&oldid=1159723838"