Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2023.

Welsh Channel[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 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (in English or Welsh), and no inbound links. I have been unable to find any connection between the terms, but I could imagine someone being confused into thinking it was an alternative name. If I search duckduckgo.com[1], this sense is only used in links to Wikipedia and thefreedictionary (which I understand includes a partial mirror of Wikipedia), neither of which provide any explanation of the term. The other results are all media-related, most for S4C. It happens to be the name of part of a navigable route into the Dee Estuary[2], but no Dee-related article uses the term.

It's an old redirect (created in 2007), but it only had 140 views between 1/7/2015 at 1/9/2023, which suggests that any inbound links which might exist are rarely used.

I suggest that it should be deleted. A visitor would then be presented with search results for S4C, and anything else which could be created in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as it references various other topics or channels as quite a vague title, let alone the lack of sources using it for the Bristol Channel, which is named entirely differently in Welsh. It is more referenced to the River Dee estuary or a shortening of the term "Welsh(-language) (tv) channel", but per nom, not referenced enough there for a redirect.
    DankJae 08:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DankJae. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""Welsh Channel"". DuckDuckGo. Retrieved 19 October 2023.
  2. ^ "Map of Welsh Channel". streetmap.co.uk. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Cete (clade)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Cete (clade)

Proto-Artiodactyl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Proto-Artiodactyl

Rock the Nation World Tour[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I originally restored the article to open an AfD for its inclusion or deletion. I later withdrew per the suggestions given, so I am now opening an RfD regarding the article here. I do not believe that the article meets notability, and that it fails WP:NTOUR, so it looks that it meets the lines of deletion. I will also be nominating two other redirects for RfD which were also nominated in the AfD mentioned. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are all mentioned in the target article. If they are not notable enough for stand-alone articles, then redirect is the most appropriate solution. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects don't need to be topics meriting standalone notability, they just need to be useful terms for topics that are covered in the targeted articles, which is the case here. Unless I don't understand the nomination? These are also all {{R with history}}s. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All mentioned at target. The AfD was a bit confusing, but it seems that the consensus was in general that these articles were fine as redirects, just not as articles, so it's fine keeping them as redirects to me. TartarTorte 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as they are mentioned at the current target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – They are all mentioned at the current target. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Native American clothing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Native American clothing

Chechclear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 27#Chechclear

Blue Line (Tokyo Metro)[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 23:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Line is not known as the "Blue Line", officially or not. Creator was indeffed for making several redirects like this. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete per nom. I can't find this is commonly called the "blue line", a few google hits seemed at first to suggest it might be but on inspection they were all either descriptive or actually referring to the Yokohama Municipal Subway Blue Line, a different system that is not in Tokyo. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Jihadi terrorism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Jihadi terrorism

Chandrayaan-6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 27#Chandrayaan-6

Steeks[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 Steek. DAB/hatnote discussion can continue at Talk:Steek if desired, since it does not impact this RFD (the redirect would target the PTOPIC anyway). (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be the plural / present-tense of verb Steek, and is not exclusive to the Sikh article on this topic. Perhaps a disambiguation that also includes Steek (brand) can be made for the "Steek" article, with this redirect being used as an R-from-plural pointed at it. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Steek as an {{R from plural}}. My searches indicate that the knitting technique is the primary topic for the plural as well as the singular and the article already has hatnotes to the other uses. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it still be appropriate to create a Steek (disambiguation) page that covers this information, which would feature a link to Steek at its unchanged title? Utopes (talk / cont) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. While primary topic +2 is an acceptable disambiguation page, when the hatnotes are as clear and compact as they are at Steek there is no significant advantage to a dab over the hatnotes, hatnotes get people to their target in one click vs two clicks so are slightly preferable where possible. I've had a search and there isn't anything else that would be worthy of a dabmention - Cunningham Steam Wagon includes the phrase "carrying steek sleeves and differential gears" but upon investigation I find that's a typo for "steel" (that I'm about to correct), and Garth Steek is a councillor and failed mayor candidate in Winnipeg whose article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garth Steek (2nd nomination)). Everything else is a partial title match for examples of Sikh literature, parts of non-English phrases or eye-dialect for the speech of a comedy character (and not part of a catchphrase or similar). Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating the disambiguation page is the best solution Usingh0663 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be suitable to create a dab page? Or are the hatnotes more than enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, don't disambiguate - the knitting term appears to be the primary topic by a wide margin. When I Googled this I got knitting and clothing results all the way down the page as far as I bothered to scroll. The only result I saw for the Sikh literary term was Wikipedia itself, and there were also a few non-notable brands in the results. The current hatnote at steek handles this just fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I meant to say Retarget to steek as {{R from plural}}, per the same logic. I thought it already was. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Steek per above --Lenticel (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Regional university[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7#Regional university

Malenti[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only appears once throughout the article as a uncited word on a table for a particular monster variant that is not referred to anywhere else. There is essentially nothing here that appears to be worth the redirect's target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term exists, there are no other meanings on Wikipedia, and that site says what we currently have here: That it's a monster appearing the AD&D game and where, and that it's related to the sea elves of that game. This is verified by the primary sources given there. Not a very common term, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. In addition, the target has been improved with more secondary sources over time, so it is not unlikely to get more information there in the future. Current potential source, even if not a high-ranking one, would be this. Daranios (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's hardly mentioned at all, so it's of no help to someone searching for that word. A primary tenet of WP:R#KEEP is that the redirect is useful, which this one is decidedly not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the malenti entry now so that it briefly explains what it is about to the interested reader and so that it is no longer only "hardly mentioned". I don't see any of the WP:R#DELETE reasons to apply. Daranios (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as below…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Daranios, per my comment in the discussion below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios's expansion in the article --Lenticel (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Koalinth[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only appears once throughout the article as a uncited word on a table for a particular monster variant that is not referred to anywhere else. There is essentially nothing here that appears to be worth the redirect's target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term exists, there are no other meanings on Wikipedia, and that site says what we currently have here: That it's a monster appearing the AD&D game and where, and that it's related to the hobgoblin of the game. This is verified by the primary source given there. Not a very common term, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. In addition, the target has been improved with more secondary sources over time, so it is not unlikely to get more information there in the future. Current potential sources, even if not a high-ranking ones, would be this and this. Daranios (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly mentioned, of no use to people searching for the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the koalinth entry now with a bit of commentary by secondary sources, so that it is no longer only "hardly mentioned". I don't see any of the WP:R#DELETE reasons to apply. Daranios (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the improvements made by Daranios.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Daranios. Regardless of the improvements, the title is the correct name and the target is relevant information on it, which is what redirects are for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios's expansion of the term --Lenticel (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

19 June 2005 Zona Rosa attack[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this redirect is just a typo. There was no 19 June 2005 Zona Rosa attack, and there is nothing about it at the target article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the Zona Rosa attacks disambig. There were attacks in Zona Rosa, San Salvador on 19 June 1985 and in Zona Rosa, Bogotá on 15 November 2005. This redirect appears to be conflating the two, the disambiguation page will take them to whichever they were thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bogotá attack was 2003, not 2005. I find it very unlikely that anyone is going to search for "19 June 2005 Zona Rosa attack". GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf Yoblyblob (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as misleading and incorrect. There was no 2005 attack claimed by Thryduulf. Jay 💬 06:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jay. If there was no such attack on that date, there is no use in keeping an inaccurate redirect. Pageviews are extremely low (only 4 in the past year), so this does not appear to be a common error. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. As there was no attack in 2005, the date in the title, one needs to commit a series of errors to arrive at this date from either one of the actual dates, which suggests it's not plausible. Presidentman's data also supports implausibility. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

People's war in Bangladesh[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 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not established as a common name of reference in the article (Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8); also not used on a single page; also an example of blatantly pro-Maoist ideological language. Similar redirects have been submitted by the same user about similar conflicts in Turkey, the Philippines and Nepal, though it at least appears that in these cases, the term "People's War" is at least mentioned on the Wikipedia pages in question – though all four redirects currently have a grand total of zero Wikipedia pages that point to any of them. Ted52 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Iranian Navy's first round-the-world voyage[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 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian Navy's first round-the-world voyage" does not seem to be an accepted or widespread name for the fleet's circumnavigation of the globe, and is not listed as such in the article. See Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8. Additionally, not a single page links to this redirect anyway, and it seems unlikely that there ever will be one. Ted52 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is an instance where trying to guess at search terms and create redirects for this odd title only hampers the search engine, which is the more appropriate tool. @Ted52: you can use shortcuts like WP:RFD#D8 to refer to the guideline's list of keep (use WP:RFD#K[number]) and delete reasons, just so you know. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! I'm new to NPP and I'm still getting used to all the shortcuts, I'll try my best! Ted52 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Iranian flotilla round-the-world mission[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 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian flotilla round-the-world mission" does not seem to be an accepted or widespread name for the fleet's circumnavigation of the globe. See Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8. Additionally, not a single page links to this redirect anyway. Ted52 (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created from a reverted undiscussed page move, this is an unlikely mistaken search term and the creator of it expresses their own view that there are too many redirects now. Per Talk:Hugh Ellis-Nanney#Page move, this is not a correct title and baronets are nor referred to in this way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recently, I improved the Hugh Ellis-Nanney article from an original upgrade I conducted in 2021. I added the article move name to represent the title of baronet, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr. But now I'm told this is WP:MOS issue and not in the style of the baronets description. I found there to be numerous other article redirects regarding Hugh Ellis-Nanney, namely: Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, 1st Baronet, I think these 2 article redirects are unnecessary and should be deleted. But also there is the article which was a redirect until today, Ellis-Nanney baronets. I moved my text from the biography sections of the Hugh Ellis-Nanney article to the Ellis-Nanney baronets article to better represent the difference between a person and a family (baronet), therefore I suggest keeping the Ellis-Nanney baronets article. However, I propose the deletion of the unnecessary article redirects, again: Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney; Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, 1st Baronet. But, again I am undecided on the Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet redirect, despite MOS, because the Plas Gwynfryn (hall) mention could be used to better explain the place name of the baronetcy and display information for people searching the location of Gwynfryn near Criccieth in Wales. Cltjames (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cltjames are you aware this nomination is only about the redirect, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet, about which you say you are undecided, and not about Ellis-Nanney baronets, which is beyond the scope of "redirects for discussion"? Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:OK fine, I accept the correct article naming would be Ellis-Nanney baronets. However, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet would be an acceptable article naming for a redirect. Perhaps instead, the Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr Baronetcy. However, I decided on the singular term, baronet, because there was only one baronet, Hugh Ellis-Nanney. Again, to reiterate, Plas Gwynfryn was well known in the area surrounding Criccieth in Gwynedd, North Wales. And I believe the redirect to be within the scope of the baronet's search area online, that is, considering the full title is, Ellis-Nanney baronets of Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr, therefore it should be kept for future reference for online users searching the hall (plas) as well as the baronets. Gwynfryn was a manor house as was Cefndeuddwr near Trawsfynydd, it would be a good addition to have these place names in the search engines for Wikipedia. Cltjames (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the manor house is not a baronet. These are arguments for a different redirect that is not for discussion here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for an opinion from someone who is not the redirect creator or nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag {{R from incorrect name}}. The article indicates that the original proper name of the baronetcy is "Ellis-Nanney Baronetcy of Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr", and from that it seems the redirect is an accurate search term for an article describing the baronets of that region (or house? this is a bit out of my element). No more useful target has been suggested, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_19&oldid=1183917316"