Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2023.

List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots[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 💬 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to contain a list of magazine photoshoots, but it was removed in 2019. gnu57 22:27, 25 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).

Doree[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to disambiguate here, but don't know precisely what to include in it. Currently redirects to the boat dory as some flavour of alternative or incorrect name. However, there's a number of other articles which seem to be also closely related to this term. Lots of partial title matches, most of which should not be included in a dab page: Brioche Dorée, Flavescence dorée, Porte Dorée (disambiguation), The Gilded Cage (2013 film) (La Cage Dorée), Golden Youth (film) (Une jeunesse dorée), Maison dorée (Paris), Dorée River, La Dorée, jeunesse dorée (Glossary of French words and expressions in English#J), Aiguilles Dorées, and La vierge dorée.

Lots of names of people, which should all be included in a mixed Doree/Dorée dab page: Doree Macy, character in My Past; Doree Shafrir; Ada Dorée; Suzanne Dorée; Doree Lewak; Doris Doree, acting name of Doris Doscher; Françoise Thérèse de Voyer de Dorée (what a name); Doree, character in Too Much Happiness; perhaps many-mentioned Doree Post; Dorée Malone, List of Blueberry characters; perhaps Victor Dorée; and Herbert John Doree, 1918 Liberal candidate in Willesden East (UK Parliament constituency). Finally, a Captain Doree is mentioned at the FA Battle of Pulo Aura, but at the Carmarthen (1802 ship) that he captains he is known as John Dobrée.

Looking about Wiktionary, dorée is French for golden / gilded. Unlike wikt:dorey – a term which on en.wp redirects to dory despite Dorey (surname) – wikt:doree is solely an alternative form of dory (fish). The fish's name comes from the French word.

And a couple of other questions: is the boat dory the primary topic for dory? Where should dorée point to? There's much to consider here. J947 † edits 22:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Fine by me! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: Will you create the dab draft, or are you looking at someone else to? Jay 💬 07:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really I've been looking for second opinions on what to include. But if none eventuate I will endeavour to attempt to make an effort to look toward drafting a dab soon! :) J947 † edits 07:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafted. J947 † edits 10:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the draft. Jay 💬 10:43, 3 April 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).

War pigs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#War pigs

White Points[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. Salvio giuliano 09:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR'd articles formerly about the settlements. Neither White Point is mentioned in the target articles, with the exception of the last one which is mentioned in one sentence where it's just stated to exist. Either restore original articles with more information, or delete per WP:REDYES. The second may fall under WP:G6, but it has been the page's name for ~2 years before the BLAR. Randi Moth (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to clear an old RfD log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further opinions on whether there's pre-BLAR content worth merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Why a 4th relist? Jay 💬 07:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I relisted because Rosguill's question still hadn't been answered and I somehow missed the first relist, so thought this was the third one... On second thoughts, if there was content worth merging, it would probably have been done already, so I am about to close as delete. —  Salvio giuliano 09:05, 26 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).

Oiled (road)[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. Salvio giuliano 07:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Oil (road). Also, the non-disambiguated version of the redirect's title, Oiled, doesn't exist and has never existed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion did not hold weight at the previous RfD, however I'd like to repeat it here. Perhaps the redirect can be moved to Oiling (road) to indicate that this is about a process, but we still need to find a target that makes the term helpful by mentioning how the oiling is done. There is some mention at Road surface#Thin membrane surface. The previous deleted redirect was used at California State Route 54 and it's a redlink now. Jay 💬 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rschen7754, Garfie489, Brianyoumans, and Tavix: pinging the other participants from the previous RfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to look up articles relating to what this is, and despite my industry experience i still dont know what it is.
    The articles all refer to something which doesnt happen in my experience. Im guessing it maybe happens more in America than it does Europe, but even the pictures ive seen of the process dont normally involve oil in my experience.
    I think its neither Asphalt or Bitumen, but some other product. None of what i could find gave any real information on it. Garfie489 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per oil (road); this lightly-attended discussion is getting no traction so should default to the same outsome as it's more highly-attended predecessor. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 28 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).

Chaos carolinense[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/disambiguate.

Delete as a clear case of WP:REDYES; species names generally do not redirect to their parent genera because they are worthy of their own articles. (Note that one of these two appears to be an outdated synonym with a complicated history, so it should remain a redirect, just to a different article that does not yet exist.) An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • An odd case of having a redirect from a species synonym in absence of the actual species article. I would think that targeting it at the genus would be the sensible setup here, to be retargeted once the preferred target exists. What's the benefit of deleting them instead? REDYES does not seem to apply because these are intended to be redirects, just ultimately with another target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you for cleaning up the target article—I had been under the impression that C. carolinense was a valid name. I guess problem solved, in that case. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elmidae, and since the problem has been solved by fixing the target. CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move first without redirect to Chaos carolinensis. Keep the second. Jay 💬 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not move any of the redirects without redirect since none of them have any edit history that needs to be retained. If nee redirects need to be created, by all means, but that's not a valid reason to move edit history of a page that has always been a redirect to a new title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the second, Uanfala's dab looks good. Jay 💬 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck off vote for the first per Pppery and the below discussion. Jay 💬 08:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elmidae, unless a separate species article is non-viable, don't we normally avoid having redirects from species to genera? On another note, C. carolinense appears to be the valid name here: I've checked against source for the synonyms in the infobox [1] as well as the source for the small tree at the bottom of the article (that's Pawlowski and Burki (2009): our Chaos appears only in the first image). It's also consistent with the naming of the other species in the genus (they have neuter endings, like -ense, while -ensis would have made this masculine/feminine). Chaos chaos is a different case though, as there also exist a band an an album with the name, so disambiguating seems like the best option here. I've drafted a dab below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I notice that some other sources do use C. carolinensis [2]. – Uanfala. – Uanfala (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's not exactly clear-cut - there are definitely sources using both variants. But in the mean I agree with the conclusion argued at Chaos_(genus)#Early_history_and_naming_controversy, which is that the field appears to be converging on carolinensis. By our structures, one of -ense or -ensis must be a redirect rather than an article, and following the genus article that redirect should be -ense. Given that (that it's fated to be a redirect), my argument is that its current state of pointing at the genus article (in absence of a species article to point to) is more nearly correct than it being a redlink - since it is never going to be an article. Does that make sense? :p (re-ping because I forgot to sign: @Uanfala:) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting section. But as far as I can see, the convergence is towards Chaos carolinensis vs. Chaos chaos, Amoeba carolinensis, or Pelomyxa carolinensis. I've checked the last two refs of that section, and even though they do use the -ensis form, they don't discuss the ending. It appears more likely that this is a plausible mistake: the -ensis form is correct with respect to the two other genus name (as both Amoeba and Pelomyxa are feminine), while the fact that Chaos is neuter is not obvious (you can't tell the gender unless you look it up in a dictionary). When there are different forms in circulation, shouldn't we just follow the taxonomic databases? – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soo... where would that leave us? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The databases appear to all use the correct form in -ense (see e.g. the "identifiers" links in Chaos carolinense (Q78611696)), unless there are other databases not listed there? (I know absolutely nothing about microorganism taxonomy, so it's possible I'm missing stuff). The form in -ensis, though incorrect, appears to still be in wide use (it seems to get 3-4 times more hits on Google Scholar). – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diambiguate chaos chaos per Uanfala above. Keep Chaos carolinense; my read of the above discussion is that this is neither impeding article creation through its existence (because it's not the title the new article should use), nor an implausible typo (because it seems to be in active use, even if incorrect). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB/Keep per Pppery. signed, Rosguill talk 03:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both species (or names) are discussed on the target page, so I find these helpful. For the many species where all we'd really say about them is "belongs to this genus", yes, I'd agree that redirects are not helpful. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 25 April 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).

Intergenerational ethics[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 💬 07:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The rationale for deleting this that I gave last August seems to still apply: Intergenerational equity and intergenerational ethics are two quite distinct areas of study – the former is something studied mostly in economics and the latter mostly in moral philosophy – and the latter isn't discussed in the article on the former, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. As such, WP:RDEL #10 applies and we're better off deleting this to encourage creation of an article on this topic. As this redirect was previously "soft deleted", Superb Owl is entirely within their rights to recreate it, but I continue to think it's misleading and unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I would argue that per WP:RGUIDE ("If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete") this shouldn't have been soft deleted, though it doesn't make that much difference in the case of a redirect anyway. A7V2 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creator has contested the nomination at the RfD notification talk thread, and I have asked him to bring it here for it to be considered. Jay 💬 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I did read the creator's explanation, and it didn't convince me, especially given that "ethics" is not mentioned in the body of the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree that it would be better to have a redlink here than a redirect; the two are distinct concepts, and leaving a redlink would encourage someone to make an article about inter-generational ethics. The redirect creator's rationale on their talk page is frankly unconvincing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:29, 25 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).

Pools (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 refine. Salvio giuliano 07:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "(song)" subjects on the target disambiguation page which have the name "Pools". Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 25 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).

Pool (sports)[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. There seems to be general agreement that the current target is the primary topic. Editors are welcome to continue discussing whether the article should be moved to better satisfy WP:PRECISE at its talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking these should be retargeted to Pool as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since readers could be looking up these terms trying to locate sports associated with Swimming pool. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter, singular redirect should definitely be kept as is IMO but I see what you're saying. J947 † edits 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both should be kept as MOS:ENGVAR variations and should go to the same target. Americans say sports, British use sport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. This is too much of a stretch, and at most all that is needed is {{Redirect|Pool (sports)| |Pool (disambiguation)}}. It's also very undesirable for Pool (sport) and Pool (sports) to go to confusingly different targets.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 02:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not really ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason why I created this discussion is because the title of the target article is Pool (cue sports), not Pool (sports). All the "keep"-ers here ... does that mean that "(cue sports)" is unnecessary disambiguation, and the article should be moved to Pool (sports) per WP:PRECISE??? Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: As the creator of these redirects, what are your thoughts on my "unnecessary disambiguation" thoughts? If you agree, I'll consider withdrawing this and filing a WP:RM. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're thinking of WP:CONCISE, as "(cue sports)" is a more WP:PRECISE disambiguation than "(sports)". Anyway, the status quo has served us just fine for years and years. There is nothing broken, so no "fix" is needed. You can RM it if you want, but I'm skeptical consensus would be reached to move the article to Pool (sports) (and it should not move to Pool (sport) because it's a class of sports not a single sport). There is no rule that the shortest possible disambiguation string must be used; we use a balance of the WP:CRITERIA, weighing PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE and NATURAL and CONCISE together.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that claim fascinating since the disambiguator "(cue sports)" is present in only 2 article titles and 8 redirect titles on the English Wikipedia, meaning it's used only 10 times. I'm not sure if that is a really strong case to keep the status quo since that finding doesn't particular define it to be a status quo due to the low numbers. Anyways, some food for thought here; without a disambiguation policy, it's probably hard telling where the precedence is. Anywho, with all that being said, I'm thinking I'll leave this nomination open, and am unsure of my RM idea at the moment. Thanks for the response! Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the argument you're making. "That claim" has no clear referent. And the status quo (that the article is at a particular title, and some other particular titles redirect to it) has nothing to do with any numbers. The disambiguation "(cue sports)" could only be used one time and that would not make it a faulty disambiguation. Cue sports stuff rarely needs disambiguation, and when it does, something more specific like "(snooker)" is often applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 1 April 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).

Cunt discharge[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. Jay 💬 07:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does exist as a term. But do we really need this on WP? Onel5969 TT me 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: highly unlikely search term, all I can find online is referring to a song by the same name, no actual usage of this term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Yes, I know we're not censored, but I feel like we'll be right back here in a week. –Fredddie™ 06:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being WP:NOTCENSORED, it seems like a valid search term. Comes up with porn results in search, so seems to be in use. Why would we delete this if it is in use, unless we are censoring things due to impropriety and the squeamishness of editors? And PERMPROT to prevent renomination for censorship-- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term and WP:NOTCENSORED. If it is being misused, vandalised, disruptively re-litigated, etc then it can be protected and/or the editor(s) misusing/vandalising/etc can be dealt with appropriately without hindering readers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 29 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).

Spectator Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2#Spectator Club

Ephebo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#Ephebo

JMI[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#JMI

Municipalite of repe Orny[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#Municipalite of repe Orny

Sergey Malinka[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. Salvio giuliano 07:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject not mentioned at target article, nor does he have any apparent connection to the Madeleine McCann case. This redirect was created in 2007 as a short-lived stub that was immediately redirected, possibly due to its lack of content and sourcing. Deletion would be best in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject is indirectly mentioned (but not named) in the target article. He is not notable and should never have been in the target article. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect is a BLP violation while the subject is not mentioned and I agree that they should not be. The underlying stub is unsourced, but being both sourceable and neutrally written it doesn't qualify for either G10 or BLP summary deletion (although I vacillated on the latter and nearly deleted it three times). At best the subject is a BLP1E, but the only alternative to deletion would be redirecting back to the current target... Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 27 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_25&oldid=1155396637"