Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2023.

Let It Be (film)[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 Let It Be#Film and television. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Let It Be#Film and television as incompletely disambiguated. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an uncontroversial refine to a different section of the same page, why is this on RfD? 178.155.5.44 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I listed the wrong current target when I filed this nomination, the target was actually Let It Be (1970 film) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:57, 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).

Suck my cock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Suck my cock

TRAVELLING TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT[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) 15:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect, appears to be completely random. Loafiewa (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have no idea what this is about. It originally targetted First TransPennine Express which does have trains which go to Manchester Airport, but this is not really helpful targetting there or the current target. At best I can understand from the other contributions from the user who created this, is that this was created accidentally in all caps as Travelling from manchester airport was created only a few minutes later. TartarTorte 17:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any real purpose for the redirect here either, I can only agree with the person who nominated this article. EditorEpic (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - odd capitalization aside, the target does in fact have a long section on transit options servicing the airport, which is useful information relevant to this title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no afinity for all caps. I concur that Travelling to Manchester Airport would be a useful redirect, but not the all-caps form. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 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).

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Press release on English Wikipedia hitting milestone 1 million articles[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. I'm all for due process, but there was really zero reason for this not to have been deleted under G6. The page only existed at this erroneous Wikipedia:Wikipedia: title for a short while and I would have suppressed the Redirect when I moved it, had I remembered to do so. It's Uncontroversial, so I've closed it as speedy.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a G6 candidate as a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. RfD is started instead per Liz's advice. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:16, 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).

Wikipedia:DIT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Wikipedia:DIT

Invasive carp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Invasive carp

Life is but a dream...[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 Life Is But a Dream.... signed, Rosguill talk 13:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be the previous name of Life Is but a Dream, including the ellipsis, which refers to a Beyonce documentary. However, this page was moved away from this title to drop the ellipsis, all while there is seemingly another topic that does contain an ellipsis, being Life Is but a Dream... which is an Avenged Sevenfold album.

(There seems to be something odd going on with the capitalization as well, because WP:DIFFCAPS might differentiate these two subjects. Currently though, both titles have capitalized "Life", "Is", and "Dream" each, strangely, when this does not reflect the articles at times. Specifically the Beyonce one, which has several capitalization variations used throughout.)

In any case, I believe that the existence of the ellipsis in this title means the redirect should target the album with the ellipsis, which seems to exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Capitalizing "Dream" or adding (or removing) elipses, doesn't really help pick a target. Between the confusion that you note and the hat notes, and even Row, Row, Row Your Boat - that all of these refer to - this seems to be a good candidate for a dab page. - jc37 20:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Life Is but a Dream..., agreeing with the nom about the ellipsis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 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).

Tag team boxing[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 Tag team (disambiguation) without prejudice to further page moves, which some participants identified as optimal in this situation. signed, Rosguill talk 13:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, it does not seem like people who would search for "tag team boxing" would be expecting to end up at a article about a fight where tag-team boxing occurred, but would want information about tag-teaming as a medium. While I could be mistaken, it feels like redirect about "fighting as a tag-team" would be better off targeting the base article of Tag team, even with the wrestling focus, as it provides more coverage and potentially useful context about the "tag-teaming" portion as opposed to the brief mention at the current target where it is not the primary focus. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Tag team? Or to Tag team (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 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).

Poor country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Poor country

Fish ribs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Fish ribs

Sausage flat[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 13:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a "sausage flat" is a type of building mentioned in New Zealand press that is "no longer allowed" according to the website listed in the edit summary. That being said, I don't know about anybody else, but for this search term I can only think of flat Lorne sausages for breakfast, which google seems to agree.

(I should also mention that "sausage flats" are not mentioned at the article Public housing, to which this redirect serves as an r-to-section.) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being an ambiguous and somewhat unlikely search term. My first thought was Sausage patty, which redirects to patty but sausage isn't specifically mentioned there. Search results would handle this better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:53, 5 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).

Lightspeed Esper[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 13:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the name of a TV series, whose main character was supposed to be Toshiba's mascot. The Toshiba article does not make any note of this media.

The redirect was created in order to be listed as a blue link on a template. However, in this case, a red link seems more appropriate. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:34, 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).

Marsouin[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. signed, Rosguill talk 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the French name for a porpoise, a name which is included nowhere at the target page. Appears to be an WP:RLANG situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was inspired by a passage from an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson called "The Comic":
The physiologist Camper humorously confesses the effect of his studies in dislocating his ordinary associations. "I have been employed," he says, "six months on the Cetacea; I understand the osteology of the head of all these monsters, and have made the combination with the human head so well, that everybody now appears to me narwhale, porpoise, or marsouins. Women, the prettiest in society, and those whom I find less comely, they are all either narwhales or porpoises to my eyes."
I liked the passage, but I wasn't sure what a "marsouin" was in the context. I Googled it and found that it was an older term for the harbour porpoise, It is still in current use in French and the French Wikipedia article is titled "Marsouin commun." I just thought that someone on English Wikipedia should be able to make the connection without all the Googling. Alexa003 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a dab at "Marsouin" as, apart from the ships, there are other existing articles on a football club and a river - and it's a nickname for the French marine troops. Davidships (talk) 01:52, 30 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).

Munsey Park Plaza[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Munsey Park Plaza

Been there done that messed around[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Been there done that messed around

University of Twente Pure BIB (identifier)[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 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target page makes no mention of Pure BIB, or identifiers in general. Its current singular use-case is in a template created by the redirect's creator. From my point of view, the redirect's link on the Template:University of Twente Pure should specifically just link to the article itself, as there is no contest for its title, much less the need to specify the identifier (which isn't mentioned to begin with). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason for including the (identifier) suffix is defined in the text of Template:R from citation identifier. It is required when linking through an identifier in a template. I'll add information about their research catalog to the target page as well to clear up all the objections to this redirect. BhamBoi (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, although I believe the redirect is valid in having the (identifier) tag, I will probably be deleting the template that links to it because of a lack of usage. Thus, this redirect will be pointless and worthy of deletion. BhamBoi (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't disagree with the usefulness of having an "identifier" redirect that creates a partition for the WhatLinksHere page..., from my point of view, those are mainly used alongside identifiers that are widely spread and would attract several hundreds or thousands of links. At that point, having the separated title is quite useful... for the articles that are ABOUT identifiers. I think my original sticking point, (putting the "R from identifier" aside for a moment), was the fact that the article in question wasn't even about the identifier at all, so having the link there adds questionable value at best. If the page featured information about the identifier and why it links there, I feel like there would have been more promise. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:38, 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).

Amtryptamine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6#Amtryptamine

Countrycore[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 Cottagecore. signed, Rosguill talk 13:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs for this article:

non existent term FMSky (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Cottagecore ({{R from synonym}}). As mentioned briefly in an AfD comment, this seems to be a term that can be used at least somewhat synonymously with the proposed target. I had trouble finding many good sources that include this phrase from which to assist my judgement, but the ones I found seem to refer to the aesthetic rather than the musical genre. [2] (The interiors are more Belgravia bling than traditional countrycore); [3] (…Marine Serre, known for its crescent moon iconography, mixed and matched plaids and checks in a countrycore-inflected frenzy); [4] (Occasionally referred to as farmcore or countrycore, cottagecore romanticises the idea of living off the land.). While not a source in itself, I think it’s also worth noting that searching a stock image website for “countrycore” returns images relating to the aesthetic/country life, and none (admittedly, that I can see) relating to the term’s use as a musical genre - [5]. Finally, when I google the term ‘countrycore’, the majority of the search results I get are also referring to the aesthetic rather than the genre (I won’t link the search results page though as who knows what different results Google’s algorithm will show up at different times). A smart kitten (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t see how much history the deleted page had, but if it had a non-trivial amount, I’d also support undeleting it prior to the retargeting, and also tagging any resulting redirect with {{R with history}}. A smart kitten (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Following @Shhhnotsoloud‘s comment below, if this page is retargeted to either Cottagecore or Cowpunk, I wouldn’t be opposed to adding a hatnote pointing to the other. A smart kitten (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cowpunk where it is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That mention was unsourced (and is now removed) --FMSky (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is not mentioned on country rap. This could work as a redirect to Matanza as it is mentioned there, but of course, if there are other artists described with this, it could be redirected to cowpunk with a small section describing this with the sources.
P.S. I did not recreate this redirect, somebody else did that, but thanks anyways for the notification. Moline1 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it does get redirected to Matanza or Cowpunk, then a notice informing people of the other page referred to by this term will be needed (e.g. Countrycore redirects here. For the aesthetic also referred to as countrycore, see cottagecore). Moline1 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recently-created neologism with no apparent agreed-upon definition of what it is. Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing things. I didn't find any evidence that this is anything other than entirely made up, but if it was a notable topic then WP:REDLINK applies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Kitten's suggestion to retarget to Cottagecore with a hatnote pointing to Cowpunk makes the most sense. Or vice versa, as proposed by Shhh and Moline. 53zodiac (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesnt make sense to have a redirect to copwpunk as its not related to it at all -FMSky (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kitten suggested redirecting it to cottagecore, not cowpunk. The hatnote could point to the other article if necessary 53zodiac (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Like I said in the last discussion, unless it's a synonym or misspelling (it's not), it can't be redirected anywhere if there's not a reliable source that directly connects the two. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: WP:NOTNEO states that such articles are commonly deleted. I’d argue that the accepted standard (for want of a better term) for keeping a redirect is generally lower than that of an article — redirects are WP:CHEAP. I’d argue that Cottagecore as a redirect is fine to keep, as the term has got some usage in reliable sources that seems to connect it to Cottagecore (per my !vote), and it doesn’t seem like keeping the redirect would be harmful. I apologise if I’m misunderstanding anything here, as you’re a much more experienced editor than me! Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 21:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the reliable source that makes the connection between the two though? Without a source, there can't be a mention in the article. And without a mention in the article, the redirect will go unexplained, and just end up deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73 This Country Living article connects the two. user:A smart kittenmeow 21:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Country Living is a reliable source and someone can integrate it into cottage core, the. I'm not opposed to retargeting. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 16 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] 16:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting here for full transparency that I have boldly added (sometimes referred to as Countrycore or Farmcore) to the opening sentence of Cottagecore. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiability and notability are requirements for articles, not redirects. There's not really a simple standard for redirects, but redirects are cheap and retargeting them is easy; as long as they aren't actively harmful (derogatory, etc) why are we deleting them for not meeting the requirements to have a full article? If they met those requirements they would have that article, not a redirect... as for the correct target; best effort. If no one in this conversation is enough of an expert to know for sure/find a reference to state, pick something plausable and let it wait for someone that is. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the key word here is "simple redirect". If it's a simple misspelling or something, nothing is necessary. But things that aren't self-explanatory needs an explanation, and all content additions need a source, so yes, a source is necessary in many scenarios. All you have to do is read through the archives a bit and you'll see how many redirects are deleted on the explanation of "redirect not mentioned in article". Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you're getting simple redirect from? I don't see it in WP:R, certainly not in WP:R#DEL or WP:RKEEP. The closest thing to policy needing a redirect to be verifiable would be if it's non-neutral... which, this doesn't seem like a POV issue to me. Beyond that, it feels like you're saying "we have been doing it this way," and I don't really find that compelling. It doesn't seem like we are hoping the redlink will attract someone to make a new article given that an article at that name was just RfD'd. Would it be best if there's a reference to the term in the article? Absolutely. Is it probably better to let one evolve naturally and then we (or a bold editor) can retarget to the appropriate location that has surfaced. Until then, I don't see any policy reason or benefit to deleting this redirect, and I do see potential drawbacks from people recreating an article deleted as WP:NEO. So, I feel the appropriate action on the redirect is best effort at an appropriate target and let better possible results evolve. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have completely missed the point I'm making. Let's start over. What I'm talking about the is really just the most basic implementation of WP:V and WP:NOR. It's very simple:
    1. Unexplained/confusing/unintuitive redirects are deleted. WP:RDELETE is pretty clear about this - especially points #2, #5 and #8.
    2. To provide context, you would have to add content to the article.
    3. To add content an article, you'd need a source. On Wikipedia, all content additions require to be verified by reliable sources (WP:V)
    Put all 3 of those points together to understand why we need for a source for this redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying that "simple redirect" is the key word then don't be surprised when it becomes the key of someone's answer.
    Retarget per A smart kitten. And when you see the argument "delete because the redirect is not mentioned in the article", see if you can find another reason why the redirect may be useful. Because this alone is rarely a good reason for deletion. Renerpho (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how my comment about "simple redirects" keeps getting misconstrued. I was saying that we don't need a explanation/source for something like, let's say, Mario Brothers redirecting to Mario Bros because they're just obvious alternate spellings. But it is necessary when it's entirely different words/concepts, like countrycore/cottagecore. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for thoughts on recent discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_29&oldid=1178950822"