Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 55: Line 55:
*'''Speedy delete''' should have never been created in the first place. This is appalling.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 21:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' should have never been created in the first place. This is appalling.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 21:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


:'''Delete the redirect''' - I agree with SwatJester, the channel itself is likely notable enough to have its own page, especially if the likes of [[Hickok45]] have pages and less subscribers and overall popularity. [[User:Plasmium|Plasmium]] ([[User talk:Plasmium|talk]]) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete the redirect''' - I agree with SwatJester, the channel itself is likely notable enough to have its own page, especially if the likes of [[Hickok45]] have pages and less subscribers and overall popularity. [[User:Plasmium|Plasmium]] ([[User talk:Plasmium|talk]]) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


====E610====
====E610====

Revision as of 23:09, 15 July 2024

July 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2024.

Goerdel's theorem

Unlikely typo; no hits on the web. Goerdel et al. don't exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from a phonetic (mis)pronunciation, so that others may find the correct target.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:INLINE

I discovered this redirect when trying to get to Wikipedia:Inline citation. From what links here, it seems a common mistake. The reason I'm not boldly changing it myself is that the current target, a WikiProject, seems alive, even if it's on life support. I figure, as a courtesy, we should get consensus to overwrite a redirect they've been using for years. It could also potentially be turned into a disambiguation page, though that wouldn't be my preference. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FinalMethod

Not mentioned at the target with or without a space. Internet and Google Scholar results did not turn up anything illuminating. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How the sausage gets made

A line near the bottom of the article has a newspaper quoting Saxe giving a version of this quote, without any explanation and barely any context. According to WikiQuote this is the earliest known use of the phrase that's popularly [mis]attributed to Otto von Bismarck; his WikiQuote page elaborates on that somewhat but his Wikipedia bio doesn't mention it at all. Wiktionary has wikt:how the sausage gets made which gives an explanation of the phrase but nothing on its background. I don't think we have a better page for the metaphor; we have inside baseball (metaphor) which is similar but not quite the same thing. I'm not sure what to do but I don't think the current treatment is right. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy 2

abbreviation only seen in the specific context of discussions about mario games. could otherwise refer to samsung galaxy devices, or other things with "galaxy" in their names and a 2 somewhere cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Ranch

Not sure this is an appropriate target. Should an uninvolved YouTube channel really redirect to the shooter's page? Context for those unaware [1]. An article on the channel was previously deleted twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Carriker (2nd nomination), but it may be notable enough now with all this extra coverage. C F A 💬 18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely inappropriate to redirect the title of a non-notable YouTube channel to the bio of a person who might have been (there is controversy on this) wearing their merchandise while firing an assault rifle at a former president. Readers coming to find that information will already know where to look, and there is no other information on this topic anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bad, per MOS:EGG and being generally slanderous. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources state a connection between the two. Same as the other brands of clothing he was wearing. Joellaser (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as channel had nothing to do with event as far as current evidence points, its pretty slanderous to suggest otherwise, and channel may be notable enough at this point to merit own article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect -- No connection between the shooter and the channel (which I'd question whether it's non-notable with 11 million subscribers, I'd be shocked if there's not sufficient coverage enough to merit it's own article. Even CBS refers to it as "popular".)⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect - I agree with SwatJester, the channel itself is likely notable enough to have its own page, especially if the likes of Hickok45 have pages and less subscribers and overall popularity. Plasmium (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E610

While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as LG Optimus L5, Orange SPV and South African Class 5E1, Series 2. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical high pixel count images

Not mentioned in target, and contents of the gigapixel article doesn't contain any technical relevance that would be applicable to peta-, exa-, zetta-, or yottapixel images. The size difference between a gigapixel image and a yottapixel image is huge - printed at 300dpi (standard magazine quality print), a gigapixel image would be about the size of a kingsize bed, while a yottapixel image would have about the same surface area as Neptune, and (if stored at 24bits/pixel) would require 6000x the storage capacity of all of AWS to store it as a png.

Note: Petapixel was recently listed at RFD and deleted, but that had different circumstances because of the existence of the unrelated article PetaPixel. BugGhost🦗👻 15:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuzlocke

"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [2]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Gamer (website)

The target page mentions the concept of a "hardcore gamer" but bears no reference to the website of that name. IceWelder [✉] 08:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Patterson

I propose to move the new disambiguation page, Harry Patterson (disambiguation), over this title. The current redirect subject, Jack Higgins, may well be a popular author, but his real name was "Henry Patterson" (not Harry), and he apparently only ever made limited use of the name "Harry Patterson", finally switching to "Jack Higgins" before he became famous; I therefore do not think there is a primary topic for the actual name, "Harry Patterson". BD2412 T 01:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Harry Patterson (disambiguation) to Harry Patterson, per 98Tigerius BugGhost🪲👻 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui

Current target Muslim Kayastha is very specifically referring to a community in a region in India. Meanwhile this name found all over Pakistan and Bangladesh as well among unrelated communities. (e.g the name is listed here as a Sindhi name as well List of Sindhi tribes (in the "others" section) Kowtis (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshwari Vilas Coffee Club

Not mentioned in target. Is a series aired on that channel, may belong at List of programmes broadcast by Zee Telugu but that page is up for deletion. Rusalkii (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Seethe Ramudi Katnam Rusalkii (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and very very many others, all of which created by an editor blocked for paid editing User talk:RahulBodke. Propose to delete the lot. Rusalkii (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it belongs there, someone needs to add an entry. (And maybe add some sources, that list article is rather light on those.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SportAccord

Removal/deletion of current redirect as it creates misleading impression. The redirect page reflects the name of a separate organization with its own initiatives whereas the target page reflects another organization that is now dissolved. In the current target page there's even a proposal on the Talk page from someone addressing this confusion. There should be a separate page and information about the redirect page of SportAccord JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, maybe we can just rename that GAISF article again to be SportAccord? Notified both WP:SPORTS and WP:Switzerland. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard, indeed. But I feel there would be value to having a separate SportAccord page as these are entirely different entities and it's tricky to combine them into one article efficiently as they have different structures, activities, missions. JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's why that SportAccord has its own Wikidata item just because of entirely different entities, but then it meets own notability for separating? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though it seems there's a connection between the two pages and organizations, SportAccord seems to have very different initiatives and a strong user following from people who attend the SportAccord events so there will be a benefit to distinguishing clearly the two organizations.
Thomson.janet101 (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I did some little digging into this.
    • The website mentioned in GAISF infobox https://gaisf.sport currently redirects to https://sportaccord.sport However it only has links to some summits and does not mention of any list of member federations.
    • Another website https://gaisf.org which is linked from some member federations' website (such as https://www.ilsf.org/about/recognition/gaisf/) says on its homepage "DISSOLUTION OF GAISF APPROVED AT EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, RECORD ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS, NEXT STEPS CLARIFIED". Opening the link takes us to [8] which explains the development in details including the role of SportAccord. Also, its history page says the following:
      2003: GAISF in collaboration with the Association of Summer and Winter Olympic International Federations (ASOIF and AIOWF) launch the first SportAccord International Convention to answer a need from the IF’s which were looking to have a “one stop shop”, where they could all hold their annual meetings, be encouraged to network and share their knowledge.
      2017: SportAccord is renamed GAISF (Global Association of International Sports Federations)
      2022: Members approve dissolution of GAISF at Extraordinary General Assembly
    Honestly, I cannot construct a coherent history from this. If GAISF "launched" SportAccord, how did the latter also become "GAISF". Were there two bodies by the name of GAISF since 2017? If SportAccord was already remnamed in 2017, what is the SportAccord that functions currently? If someone knows more about this, it would be easier to make a decision. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metal age

different targets, and there's an article for the metal ages... which is itself divided into 3 ages, the last of which seems to be referred to as "the" metal age, even though they're grouped together because they're different metals. i'll vote for retargeting both of those to metal ages, unless someone actually knows their stuff cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate at Metal Age, then retarget The Metal Age there. I guess I know some stuff, and it looks like "Metal Age" or "The Metal Age" (both singular) could refer to:
I don't see a primary topic amongst them and I'm also not sure about Metal Ages as standalone article, there's not much to say about them collectively other than that they all involved metal. @Iskandar323: What do you think? – Joe (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Joe. I think they should both redirect to Metal Ages (though this should possibly move to the singular, both as best practice stylistically and apparently as the most common form in scholarship (Ngrams)). While the page as is stubby, it's for lack of attention, not for lack of material. The scholarly literature using the conceptual period grouping is considerable. The Metal Age in Southeast Asia might have a slightly different progression, but it is conceptually the same thing. Hesiod's idea within an idea mercifully has a quite different form. The Thief II title name is not something I think we need to be concerned with, any more than we need to disambiguate "resurrection" to account for the fourth installment of the Aliens franchise when directing to that topic. If a disambiguation page feels warranted, I would suggest linking to it with a hatnote from the Metal Ages page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about combining the Metal Age of Southeast Asia and the "metal ages" of the rest of the world. In most of the Old World the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages are firmly distinct periods (the latter two being two of the original three ages) and referring to them together as either "the metal age" or "the metal ages" is honestly something I'd never come across until today (though Google Scholar tells me it happens). By contrast archaeologists of Southeast Asia consistently use it as a distinct, top-level period with the subdivisions early, developed, and proto-historic rather than copper, bronze, and iron. So we could write Metal Age Southeast Asia but not Metal Age Europe or Metal Age Southwest Asia because nobody really talks about that (instead we have Bronze Age Europe, Iron Age Europe). – Joe (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it's somewhat academic at this point when a Metal Age of Southeast Asia page doesn't exist yet. I think the reason why the Metal Ages are emerging more and more as a reference point is because the three-age system is a bit dated and broken and underappreciates the major technology step of metallurgy. The stone age is also, in of itself, massive – comprising the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic, so it's generally pretty useless and unhelpful to group that with the bronze and iron ages, which are very distinct from the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke of Hum redirects

Extension to bio's name in the article tile is misnomer in form of implausible noble title. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article leads specify that they are Grand Dukes (of Bosnia), and have holdings in Hum... heck, Vlatko is specified to be a Duke of Hum. Seems plausible to me that someone would mash the two facts together when searching for this person. A redirect doesn't have to be accurate, and mistakes and misunderstandings are perfectly acceptable reasons to have a redirect. The target is also unambiguous here. Doesn't really matter if there actually is a "Grand Duke" title for Hum or not. Fieari (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cursory Google Books search for "grand duke of hum" and "veliki vojvoda humski" don't turn up these people, but it does turn up some other people, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, Miroslav, Vojislav. Santasa99 what is the actual significance of this title, if any? --Joy (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, guys! Duke of Hum exists as a title, Grand Duke of Hum does not/did not, and there is very clear record about every known/recorded local nobleman and how he used to title himself - so no mystery there. In case of Vlatko Vuković and Sandalj Hranić they did not use title Duke of Hum either, they always signed themselves or were mentioned in charters as Grand Duke of Bosnia only. Many other local noblemen, even of lesser status than Vuković, Hranić, and later Vukčić (all members of Kosača clan) wore the Duke of Hum title - such as Sankovićs, Nikolićs, Vlatkovićs, etc. - simply there was no such title as Grand Duke of Hum, there was only Grand Duke of Bosnia as a title. Of all Kosača members, only Stjepan Vukčić wore both titles, the Duke of Hum and Grand Duke of Bosnia, and also Knez of Drina and of Primorje, and he almost always used full title. There was also nobility from earlier periods, but as far as I know nobility in pre-Bosnian medieval state era mostly wore title of knez (knyaz/prince) and župan. In short, title Grand Duke of Hum never existed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have said from Early Middle Ages instead of pre-Bosnian state. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see every single recorded title in Konkordancijski rjecnik cirilskih povelja srednjovjekovne Bosne. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby DS

there are 3 other kirby games on the ds, and squeak squad isn't even the first one cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

CNR. Should we retarget to Wiki#Security? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Ca talk to me! 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING - no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to see how the sausage is made; just dumping them into project space unawares is frankly kind of cruel. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh (weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main->Project, such as Administrators noticeboard (and variations), Autoconfirmed, Disambiguation page, Good article, and many more (can sift through Category:Redirects to project space to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main->project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Wikipedia, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Brain

vague, subject to varying definitions of "boss" and "brain", not associated with the arachnotron or icon of sin in doom 2. taking both terms literally, i can name the spider mastermind (introduced in doom 1), the brain of cthulhu, mother brain, machiavillain, the 1000-thr, and i guess andross? if anything, the closest to a "primary" target seems to be the brain of cthulhu, but it's not mentioned in terraria's article at all cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 assassination attempt

Too general. MSMST1543 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chilodontidae-stub

Unused. Chilodontidae is a former spelling (now regarded as incorrect) for a gastropod family. Chiodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family. See the Chilodontidae dab page. Template redirect uses the spelling for the fish family to redirect to a stub sorting template for the gastropod family Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_15&oldid=1234747123"