Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2023.

Neighbours: The Adventure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 2#Neighbours: The Adventure

Bzyb (village) ()[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as uncontroversial maintenance. ✗plicit 04:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The empty parentheses have no connection to the name of the village in question. Both titles resulted from accidental page moves, and no one is going to search for them. I suggest deletion. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parentheses were only a kludge. The redirects can be deleted safely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 24 September 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).

Leigh Chappell[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) 18:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. Google searches fail to elucidate the matter. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created this redirect when the target mentioned Chappell. Since then, the article has been heavily rewritten, and mentioning Chappell by name would probably be undue. 75.172.57.145 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potential BLP violation as they are a non-notable low-profile individual. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:39, 29 September 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).

Goodbуe Little Darling[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) 18:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed script redirects. The "y" in "goodbye" is actually a U (Cyrillic). These were created by accident, they are left over from the creator moving these pages to the correct title. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I get it, they were created bу accident, but I'm not sure people will be searching with mixed Latin and Cуrillic scripts. It might be better for these redirects to go to allow for uninhibited search. Regards, SONIC678 21:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT: very unlikely and unhelpful search terms. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Sorry, it was me who created the redirects. My mistake. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:26, 1 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).

Climber (climbing)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#Climber (climbing)

Vlad putin[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! 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No one calls him this. (Created by the sockmaster of Jaiquiro and Hamtrane). Delete. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:46, 24 September 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).

ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 2#ⵜⴰⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ

Good ol' boy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#Good ol' boy

Mary Bale[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 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This section of the article was deleted by @Valereee: in January 2022. Ms Bale fails WP:PERP and should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 24 September 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).

Drug seeking[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 Addiction. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Behavior section of Substance dependence is gone, and I don't see a good place that discusses what drug seeking behavior actually is. There are more mentions at Addiction, but all seem to assume readers' familiarity with the phrase. There are mentions in other articles (e.g., Relapse, where Reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior redirects) that I'd say the same of. I think this is a case for WP:REDLINK deletion, though at a minimum, we'd want these to have the same target. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Addiction. The relevant content was evidently moved from there by Seppi333 during multiple extensive revisions on 12 February 2015. Much of that content appears to still be there, including what causes drug seeking behaviour from a neurobiological perspective. ("Drug seeking behavior is induced by glutamatergic projections...") Discussion about the causes of seeking is much more than a passing mention, such as the one at the current revision of Substance dependence. I think there's enough content at Addiction to warrant an {{r from related topic}}. – Scyrme (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the various "behavior" options to Doctor shopping, Neutral on "Drug seeking". This term is used in literature directed at doctors and pharmacists ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to describe the behaviour described in our Doctor shopping article (attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse) - indeed, one of the variants of "drug seeking behavior" might be a better title for that article. Tevildo (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctor shopping doesn't mention "seeking" so it would be a surprising target, whereas Addiction has uses of it throughout.
    Additionally, "doctor shopping" isn't "attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse", rather it's "attempting to get prescriptions for drugs of abuse from multiple physicians/pharmacies", as in "shopping around". Doctor shopping is a particular example of a drug seeking behaviour rather than a synonym, and that not all forms of drug seeking would constitute doctor shopping. There are other behaviours which don't imply going to multiple providers and so wouldn't constitute "doctor shopping" such as "still requesting pain medication with signs of over dosage: slurred speech, unsteady" (from the first PDF linked).
    "Drug seeking" in the context that you're referring to essentially encompasses any form of manipulation to acquire drugs of abuse. Doctor shopping is only one form of such manipulation. Even in this context it's implied that the seeker is an addict and is using manipulation to satisfy their addiction; the first PDF for example, notes "... the majority, 51% or more, of the general nurses agree drug seeking means are that the patient is addicted to opioids (58%)". – Scyrme (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Doctor shopping isn't an ideal target, as it only covers one specific form of drug-seeking behaviour, but we don't have a more comprehensive article on the subject. Addiction only covers the mechanisms, causes, and treatment of addiction, and has no mention of the methods addicts use to obtain drugs, which is what someone who enters "drug seeking" is going to be looking for. In default of expanding and renaming Doctor shopping, my alternative suggestion would be Substance abuse#Drug misuse, where the behaviour in question is at least mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:12, 24 September 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).

Morocz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#Morocz

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox[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 two relists, editors remain divided between deletion and keeping, with arguments for keeping both on procedural history-maintenance grounds and on the merits of the redirect itself. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page was merged into Firefox back in 2006, but the target currently doesn't contain much in the way of criticisms of firefox, leading to this being a bit of a confusing redirect. TartarTorte 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised there's nothing about Firefox per se at Mozilla#Controversies. I'm not sure if targeting there would satisfy readers, but I'm leaning against it. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain - I'm not sure what is a suitable target, but this is a {{R with history}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete until/unless there is a section on the Firefox article called "Reception" or "Criticism". InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wherever it goes, maintain as {{R from merge}} per Ivanvector. user:A smart kittenmeow 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that it seems there was never intended to be a specific “Criticism” section at the time of the merge - e.g. the edit summary at Special:Diff/85653841: There was considerable discussion on this matter. Criticism has been re-merged back into the main articles (throughout them, not in a section).
    If there’s no better target found, I think I’d probably weakly support keeping the target as it is (due to having to retain the redirect as {{R from merge}}), but without prejudice to a bold retargeting in the future if a more fitting target/section is found.
    In terms of the avoided double redirect Criticisms of Firefox which I’ve just bundled in here, I’m less sure. It doesn’t have any edit history that needs to be preserved, so that’s not a barrier to deletion there. I’m just unsure what’s usually done here — presumably, if Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox has to be kept due to edit history, it would perhaps also make sense to keep the avoided double redirect pointing to it (a sort of ‘well, maybe it shouldn’t exist, but as it does… type scenario).
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 08:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Criticisms of Firefox since no significant criticisms are discussed at the target. Weak keep Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox since it's probably less harmful to have the redirect than to do something else funky with the history. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article discusses some criticisms with the Android app, as well as with Firefox's licensing. The Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox redirect has history via being merged, and I can't fathom keeping the redirect that includes "Mozilla Firefox" in the title to describe the browser, and not keeping the shorter version without Mozilla, as the name of the target article is just Firefox and not "Mozilla Firefox" (although both names are highly and regularly interchangeable for this topic). To that end, I think that the Mozilla-less version of "Criticisms of Firefox" is very-slightly more likely of a search search term than the Mozilla version would be, and that both should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:54, 3 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).

Joel Pinhead[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:G10 by PhilKnight (non-admin closure) Randi🦋TalkContribs 19:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a legitimate mention in the article, this is a possible WP:BLP violation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: no hits on Google at all, so can't pass WP:RNEUTRAL. 13:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:10, 24 September 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).

FoxtrotGPS[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a separate entity to Emerillon, but with some difference in circumstance. Emerillon was removed from the page back in 2018, but this particular target (FoxtrotGPS) disappeared last month, when User:Arjunaraoc edited the article 130 times between July and August. I don't have much context regarding the restructure but what I do know is that this title is no longer mentioned on the page, and thus does not make much sense to retain as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I revamped the article and removed sections which are not useful. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 24 September 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).

Multi-member university[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#Multi-member university

Phoebe Russell[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 21:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the name "Phoebe Russell" is not mentioned at the target article, nor in Charmed or in any of the related articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Judging by Special:Permalink/205747875 (the status of the redirect prior to redirection) and Special:Diff/205291309, it seems that Russell was the surname of the character in a past life. (See also Special:Diff/452115404, where the word “Russell” was last removed from the article, according to WikiBlame.) Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be, but the name of Phoebe Halliwell (or her aunt) in a previous life is not currently mentioned in the article. Removing it in 2011 without re-instatement indicates there is no great significance attached to it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 18 September 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, 24 September 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).

P'in[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) 18:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the entries on the disambiguation page are described by this modification. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 24 September 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).

Template:Condense[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Template:Condense

Guinea-Malabo[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) Utopes (talk / cont) 14:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the country is ever referred to in this way; in the same way the one doesn't talk about Japan-Tokyo, or Czechia-Prague. Unlikely search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Malabo. It's a weird construction, but not concealing or obscuring anything. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel it could equally refer to the country. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this redirect point to Equatorial Guinea or to Malabo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it verifiable that the country is actually referred to in this way? The four examples provided by Tavix are certainly real and explain why it might be used, but I cannot find any evidence suggesting that "Guinea-Malabo" has been used by anyone to refer to the country. Randi🦋TalkContribs 07:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix; I can confirm this is sometimes the employed disambiguation method (especially for the Congos in my experience), though I haven't seen this specific example before. I don't have an example on hand, but that it was created is a strong indication that it does indeed exist... J947 † edits 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP and Tavix; Equatorial Guinea may be referred to this way, although considering its lack of real-world use it might still be an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 28 September 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).

Storm Daniels, Stormy Daniel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4#Storm Daniels, Stormy Daniel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_24&oldid=1180139824"