Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 14[edit]

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

Eucharist, Introduction to the[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. Keep and retarget proposals received a lone !vote each, whereas support for deletion has coalesced following the relist. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful, very vague, no mention at the target. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - These are yet more Catholic Encyclopedia titles. In this case, I don't think either is helpful. Neither has any substantial history to preserve and Wikipedia doesn't have an "introduction to the Eucharist" article. There's nothing in this phrase that explicitly references Roman Catholicism so the current target is inappropriate. The first is especially unhelpful because it's formated for the purposes of aiding alphabetical indexing in the printed Catholic Encylcopedia, it's not relevant to Wikipedia where navigation is handle by a search engine and hyperlinks. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Creator) - Catholic Encyclopedia entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that entry titles are likely to be (re)created and are often worth keeping around when phrased normally. I do not agree that the same applies to the version of the title phrased for indexing purposes. Why would a reader use the exact format used to index entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Wikipedia rather than just typing out the normally phrased title of the topic they are interested in? Are readers expected to copy and paste it from a physical page into the search bar? It's misguided.
I don't think these redirects are "cheap" at all. Several arguments at WP:COSTLY apply here including the "Relevant factors" (particularly as many have been sent to RfD), WP:UNNATURAL, and WP:PANDORA (particularly as their existence is being used as a rational for keeping all redirects of this kind, creating more, and recreating deleted ones).
Even ignoring disagreements about their costliness and format, these particular redirects are definitely not "directed to the best place" as it is. The current target is not an "Introduction to..." article (contrast with Introduction to evolution or Introduction to electromagnetism) and is specific to Roman Catholicism, which is not appropriate for a title as broad as this on Wikipedia, which is a general encyclopedia not a specifically Catholic one; it makes absolutely no sense to reproduce aspects of the Catholic Encylcopedia like this here. – Scyrme (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not useful and potentially misleading. Wikipedia does have introductory articles which explain complex topics from a non-technical perspective, e.g. Introduction to evolution, but Eucharist in the Catholic Church isn't one of them. Even if it does appear in an index somewhere that doesn't mean it makes for a suitable redirect. Hut 8.5 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scyrme and Hut. Jay 💬 10:13, 23 March 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).

Fairy Fencer F: Refrain Chord[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 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not the subject of this redirect, but rather the subject of the redirect is the sequel of the target's subject. Delete due to WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Steel1943 and that this appears to imply it is a direct sequel to Fairy Fencer F: Advent Dark Force instead as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC) (Amended: 06:38, 18 March 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).

Prohászka Ottokár Orsolyita Gimnázium, Általános Iskola és Óvoda[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 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why this redirect was created in the first place since, as far as I can tell, there has never been a mention of this school at Győr. Győr being a big city with several schools, I can't see any reason why this one would warrant a mention there either. Bizarrely, it wasn't even mentioned there at the time in which the redirect was created either. I've searched the school up and there are a few mentions in a Hungarian Catholic news source such as Magyar Kurir 1 but nothing substantial enough for WP:ORGDEPTH so converting this into an article doesn't seem to be a valid option either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 14 March 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:Dabpage[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 Template:Disambiguation. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 14:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ambiguous unused redirect. Could easily be confused for {{Disambiguation}}, the template for dab pages. It was created as an alternative name for {{dablink}}, the former name of {{Hatnote}}, but the name is no longer useful. MClay1 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to {{disambiguation}}, where {{dab}} and {{disambiguation page}} point to; and this just means "disambiguation page" for which we have a redirect, so synchronize with that one. {{R from avoided double redirect|Template:Disambiguation page}} -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeting it will confuse the edit history of pages that used to use the redirect. I feel like deleting it is clearer, since the redirect isn't needed. MClay1 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We repurpose redirects all the time at RfD. And deleting redirects will also mess up article histories, so I don't see why that matters at all. We even reuse template names of previously deleted templates. That certainly messes up old article histories. Rewriting template code also messes with article histories. Thus that doesn't matter. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pros vs cons. If there's a choice, deleting will mess the history up less. Retargeting provides little benefit as it's not needed as a redirect. If someone wants to come up along later after it's been deleted and redirect it to {{Disambiguation}}, fine. MClay1 (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we do not have a policy of protecting deleted template names by default, then we should not be performing censorship on them at RfD. People do reuse template names not long after their deletions, so "a long time afterwards" is not following what happens with deleted template pagenames (or any other deleted page, which sometimes comes up being a new different topic not long after the non-viable topic is deleted). -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 65.92.244.151, its surprising it doesn't already go there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 20 March 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).

Nonexistent FMR stations[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 all except FMR Albay. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Station names that are NOT mentioned at the target. These stations do not exist. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except FMR Albay FMR Albay listed at target and only existing station from the list above. Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 March 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).

Secondary Period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Secondary Period

Nepalese diaspora[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 and retarget respectively. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should target the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral and DrVogel: Pinging participants of the related WP:RMTR discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they should. Both targets have useful information: Non Resident Nepali defines the legal term and lists notable people it includes; Demographics of Nepal#Nepalese diaspora has more of an overview. Should that content be merged? Certes (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think they should be merged, and that the content left over at the demographics article should be a lot less, like a summary, and point to the non-resident article. And by the way, the title "Non Resident Nepali" doesn't sound quite right, personally I would change it to "Non-resident Nepali". Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it make more sense to title the article "Nepalese diaspora", a general term for Nepalis not in Nepal, and have that article have a section regarding "Non-Resident Nepali", which is a defined legal category relevant to Nepalese law but not necessarily one used outside Nepal? As a note, the law which created the category has only existed since 2007, but the Nepalese diaspora long predates that; doesn't seem appropriate to have a modern legal category take precedence in regard to the title of this topic (Nepalis not in Nepal). – Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrVogel: Non Resident Nepali has been moved to Non-Resident Nepali by Hemant Dabral; in effect, I have updated this nomination to reflect the new name of the page. (For what it's worth, I don't find that move controversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target both to Demographics of Nepal#Nepalese diaspora as the other article seems to be a specific legal term and is hatnoted there anyway. Either way they should share the same target. A7V2 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 14 March 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).

ASDFGH[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#ASDFGH

Apocrypha (fiction)[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. After 3 relists, we do not appear close to forming a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, possibly WP:REDYES. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Previously was an article, redirected at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha (fiction)) to the current target. While it might be that the specific concept discussed in the old article is closely related to the concept of canon in fiction (as described in Canon (fiction)), there is no discussion of apocrypha in that article. So I wonder if it wouldn't be best to retarget to Apocrypha as unnecessary disambiguation? A7V2 (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting to Apocrypha wouldn't be helpful, since anyone searching or linking this would certainly not be looking for that topic. What they would be looking for is works within "a nebulous gray area of canonicity" (quoting Canon (fiction) § Examples). – Scyrme (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging the participants of the AfD: LaundryPizza03 (nom), Metropolitan90, wingedOkapi, Rorshacma, Jo-Jo Eumerus (closer). Jay 💬 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like folks in the AfD were assuming that there was some discussion of the concept in the canon article - was it deleted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of - this version was current throughout the whole AfD and contained non-empty "origin" section that stated (with a reference)

    The use of the word "canon" originated in reference to a set of texts derives from Biblical canon, the set of books regarded as scripture, as contrasted with non-canonical Apocrypha.

    but that was the only use of the term. I'm about to investigate why the Origin section was blanked and possibly replace it if there wasn't a good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah it was removed by Veverve (the nominator here) over two edits (1, 2) in February this year, partly for being unsourced and partly because "This is not what the source says". That's clearly a good reason and something that needs discussion rather than reversion by someone unfamiliar with the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be useful to keep the page (wherever it ends up redirecting) for its history rather than deleting. It doesn't seem like WP:REDYES applies if it already was created as an article and was removed in an AFD. Keeping the page history would be useful for recreating the article if it could be improved enough to overcome the issues discussed at the AFD (of which I am not informed). MClay1 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 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).

Sacraments of the Living[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. Salvio giuliano 09:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to. No mention at the target. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This redirect used to be a full article (see its history). It seems that the 'Sacraments of the Living' are a specific five of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, which is supported by these sources ([1], [2]). The page seems to get occasional traffic (Page views) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but nowhere is it explained at the target what this expression means, so this redirect is unhelpful. Veverve (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: So then we can add mention of it at the target, using the sources above. {{r from subtopic}} could be added to the redirect. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The nom has been blocked till April 12 and will not be able to respond. Jay 💬 10:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sourced mention to the lead, alleviating your worry. Since it's now mentioned, keep. Duckmather (talk) 01:05, 21 March 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_March_14&oldid=1146741242"