Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Presidentman (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 24 August 2024 (→‎A.e.t.: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2024.

Libitum

Not mentioned at target, but readers might also be looking for Ad libitum. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heidosmat

Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea 1988 (Olympics host)

Abhiramakella recently created a bunch of redirects with the "Country YYYY (Olympics host)" format to that year's Olympics article. However "Olympics host" would indicate what the Olympics host did in that Olympics, so some of them have been retargeted to the "Country at the Olympics" article. Olympic games are marketed as a city, not a country, so I can't imagine someone searching with this format anyway. Due to the ambiguity and implausibility, these should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson Bennett's final college football game

Created as a way to sidestep consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 26#Stetson Bennett's final game. This isn't a plausible search term. Also, no one else has redirects of this type (nor should they) so there is no expectation of having such a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing incorrect about my nomination statement. The redirects of this type for Payton Manning would be Peyton Manning's final college football game or Peyton Manning's final game (college football) targeting the 1998 Orange Bowl. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti universe

Antiverse redirects to multiverse. Anti universe sometimes also refers to an antigravity universe, not just antimatter universe. Web-julio (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anti-universalist redirects to Universalism. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Military Strength Index

This is a {{R from merge}}, but no such list exists at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2020 as fallout from Talk:Military/Archive 1#About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It exist in the history of the target, see [1]. Christian75 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.e.t.

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. The nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a.e.t. used in any sports besides association football? I can't find any evidence of another sport using it, but I could be missing results for less popular sports. If not, I propose that we retarget this redirect to go directly the to Overtime (sports)#Association football section instead of just to the Overtime (sports) article. Wburrow (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, After extra time redirects to the section, not the article. Wburrow (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AET seems to be used for handball too [2], [3]. Google doesn't distinguish between "a.e.t." and "AET" though so I can't say for certain the dotted lowercase isn't exclusive to football. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - to me that's enough reason to leave A.e.t. alone (and one of the articles you linked to does use the dotted lowercase). Given that, I think After extra time should be retargeted back to the article. I just looked at the page history, and it was boldly retargeted to the section by an IP editor just a couple weeks ago after an RfD in 2015 that resulted in targeting the article. Is this case where I can just revert the IP's edit and we can close this discussion, or do we need a more formal process? (I'm still new to editing at this level.) Wburrow (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the IP's edit to the redirect as unexplained and added that multiple sports use the term "extra time." — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect as it is, redirecting to the article lead instead of the association football section. As Wburrow seems to have indicated the same willingness to leave the redirect as it is, I would like to suggest that they formally withdraw the RfD to allow for early closure. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Request withdrawn I withdraw my proposal per the above discussion. Wburrow (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2024 (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).

CountryName Year redirects to 2026 FIFA World Cup

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

"CountryName Year" redirects are not unambiguously related to events and, per past precedence on the matter, should not be targeted to them. Proposing deletion until a 2026 article for the "YYYY in Country" articles are created. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAF Cepia

No mention of "Cepia" at the target page. Was recently BLAR'd after no response from the page's creator at Talk:CAF Cepia, as the name "Cepia" was seemingly not found anywhere in relation. But furthermore, it's not a helpful redirect as there is no information about this title at the target page, either, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. (AfD might potentially be a suitable venue if non-notable). Utopes (talk / cont) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD as is the correct course of action when an article is BLARed but there is no suitable redirect target, the content is not speedy deletable and has never been subject to a consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. I do want to note that I am opposed to a closer sending this to AfD "procedurally". Leave that step for someone who actually wants the article deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to status quo. This was just redirected yesterday, so an improper redirection (due to a lack of mention at the target) should have just been reverted. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever; as the editor that blanked and redirected the article, I wouldn't be opposed to a restoration and AfD, I don't have the time and energy to do it myself right now. If in this case the BLAR was out of process, as the redirect term isn't on the taget page, I'll brush up my knowledge on the relevant policies before doing deletion-related editing in the future. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragg tuning fork

that's apparently some brand that produces tuning forks. not mentioned in the target, doesn't seem like there's anything reliable regarding it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it is a brand but from what I can tell it seems to be one of, if not the, most notable manufacturer of tuning forks with at least two apparently reliable sources discussing it in depth [4] and [5] so there would be no verifiability issues with adding a mention. Whether a mention would be due or not I don't know, but I can't say for certain it wouldn't be. The redirect is getting suprisingly many views (over 100 this year), at least some of those will be because it's linked at rock gong but whether that's responsible for all of them I can't say (if the redirect is deleted that link must be updated). Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    weird place to put what's effectively an ad (or mistaking "ragg" as being part of the name), but i won't question it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternary extinction event

May also refer to Holocene extinction as well as the Holocene is also in the Quaternary Isla🏳️‍⚧ 10:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in the scientific literature, "Quaternary extinction event" and the related term "Late Quaternary extinction event" are primarily used to refer to the scope of the Late Pleistocene extinctions article (which was previously titled "Quaternary extinction event" ), rather than to the Holocene extinction. See results in scholar [6]. A hatnote (which is already present) is enough to disambiguate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hemiauchenia. If not kept then it should be disambiguated, there is definitely no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infantile

Definitely ambiguous with Infantilism. Retarget there or add the disambiguation page to the (long) hatnote already present? 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great-children

I'm not sure this refers to anything meaningful. FWIW, Grandchild redirects to Family#Roles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Family or Family#Roles. Additionally, I found that Great-grandchild also targets Family (just not the #Roles section), while Great-grandchildren does target #Roles. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "great" prefix is only used in conjunction with the "grand" prefix existing; without the "grand" prefix, the "great" prefix makes no sense, so let's not pretend like it does. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my vote. See my response to Thryduulf for further details. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SmittenGalaxy. Contra Steel, the term is used without "grand", see e.g. "my great children and great nephews and nieces"[7], "My great children loved the visit"[8], "It's a gift for my great children and should bring back happy memories to my grand son" [9], "I visit all of my children, then I visit all of my grandchildren, then all of my great children etc" [10], "I will be sharing my Nan’s memories about her Dad and Mum and also the memories of Eileen’s grandchildren and a few of her Great-Children."[11]. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Must be an American versus British English difference I was not aware of then. I like to believe I know most differences between American and British English, and to my knowledge, in American English, the prefix "great" always requires a "grand" prefix after it somewhere when referring to direct ancestors or descendants (children or parents), which does not apply to aunts, uncles, nephews, or nieces. I guess British English is different in this regard? Anywho, my vote has been struck. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not something I've heard in British English either, I just thought I'd check to see whether it did actually get used (kinship terms can be weird). I didn't think to see if it was an AE/BE thing, but based on the very small sample size of the five links above it doesn't seem to be - 2 are from the UK, 1 from the US, 1 from Canada and 1 wasn't able to quickly determine. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is "Great-children" truly a plausible search term? Relisting… since participants do not seem entirely convinced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CycloneYoris: I see two !votes to retarget as a useful search term and one stricken delete in response to the detail in the second retarget recommendation. The only unconvinced I see is whether this is specifically a British English expression. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyment

I feel like this could use some consistency. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OoX

Misleading redirect if the intent is to refer to a game in the The Legend of Zelda series with "X" referring to a letter wild card (for this target, the respective acronyms would be "OoA" and "OoS"): This redirect could also refer to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which is "OoT". Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

results gave me... birbs and madness combat. delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly with a hatnote. My results are a roughly equal mix of Zelda (with the term used to refer to the two titles collectively), World of Warcraft ("OOX refers to a series of mechanical chickens created by Oglethorpe Obnoticus" which might as well be written in Greek for all it means to me) and random non-notable stuff. List of airports in Ukraine#Military bases tells me OOX is the IATA code for Melitopol Air Base but that isn't mentioned in the article. I can't find any mention of the WoW meaning on Wikipedia (but someone who understands the game should check that) but the collective term for the Zelda games should be. A hatnote to the air base (and WoW if mentioned) would seem to be useful but I'm not going to lose any sleep if others disagree with that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So ... an ambiguous redirect with no connection to either subject at its current target should ... remain with a hatnote placed at the current target? Seems nonsensical. What would make more sense would be to create a disambiguation page and deregulate the current target to a "See also" section. (I'm still in the "delete" camp, but "disambiguate" makes more sense than "keep and hatnote" here since the "keep" part just doesn't make sense.) And I'm just itching to cite WP:PANDORA and claim this opens the door for other wildcard redirects ... maybe XBC (I know there's already an article there) for ABC, NBC, etc? Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely ambiguous with no primary topic. Let the readers type up a more specific search term or let the search function do its job. Ca talk to me! 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steel1943: an ambiguous redirect with no connection to either subject at its current target the redirect refers collectively to both of the games the target article is about. That's very much not "no connection to either subject". When something is ambiguous between one notable and multiple non-notable things, or where only one of the things is mentioned on Wikipedia, then redirecting to the only place we have relevant content is normal and more helpful to readers than deletion. Here the term refers to exactly three notable things, one of which is very clearly not the primary topic (the airbase) and two things which could be primary (Zelda and WoW). However we only have content about one of the latter two (Zelda) so we should redirect there. I don't object to a dab page, but Zelda would be a full entry not a see also. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    even if wikipedia had those wild cards for disambiguating (like xrt and eox being dabs for the first two five pokémon mystery dungeon games), this redirect could refer to 3 games in a single franchise, with a disambiguator that isn't even popularly used to refer to any of them in the first place. this redirect would require leaps of logic and frivolous details bordering on gamefaqs-style fancruft to keep or dabify... for the most part, anyway. i won't argue for or against the air base cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it is commonly used to refer to the games collectively. I have no knowledge about whether the Pokemon games are referred to collectively at all/in that manner, but if they are then they should be included on the relevant dab pages. Windows 3.x is not used to refer to any operating system specifically but it is used to refer to them collectively so we have a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator vote update: super weak retarget to Melitopol Air Base. I verified "OOX" was the IATA code for Melitopol Air Base, and added the code to the article, as well as created the respective redirect OOX pointing towards Melitopol Air Base. However, I still prefer deletion since IATA codes are in all caps always. (Other than that, I believe I have already made my other relevant points in this discussion and am refraining from further participating in order to avoid performing a WP:BLUDGEON.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind on all that: Seems the connection between "OOX" and Melitopol Air Base is potential WP:OR per an edit that reverted something I did. Forget that then. (Still "delete" on this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home computer game

Not sure if these redirects should be retained at their current target or be retargeted to Video game. Per the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Computer game, Computer game was retargeted away from PC game and to Video game. Considering the current states of the articles Home computer and Personal computer ("PC" in the current target), it does not seem as though the usage of the phrase "home computer" exclusively refers to "personal computer". Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the target works with the significant home computer game history on the PC game article and is not comparable to the computer game redirect result. A disambiguation hatnote was added to the video game article by me, maybe add something similar to PC game? IgelRM (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wpest

These unused redirects to be deleted:

Rationale: Yes, redirects are cheap, but hinders data analysis. E.g. if I want to clean up talk pages consisting of the string "WikiProject Estonia|class=start", then I have to enter all above-mentioned redirects names. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Making life easier for tool authors and similar is not a reason in and of itself to delete redirects that are of use to readers or editors. Certainly Keep Template:WPEstonia as that's demonstrably useful (as evidenced by being used). Not sure at the moment about the others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_22&oldid=1242078220"