Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

April 21

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2022.

Rectal sex

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! 00:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is never referred to with that term, plus it isn't even mentioned in the target article. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iclce

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly improbable misspelling of "icicle", consisting the lack of a second vowel and since the "l" (L) is before the second "c" instead of after it. All third party search results for "iclce" return acronyms for various organization which use the acronym "ICLCE". Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wanted 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Deleted as an unwanted cross-namespace redirect over 10 years ago, which seems long enough ago that a new discussion is more appropriate than WP:G4 deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do think that it's a genuinely useful redirect, though it literally only has 1 pageview according to this (which I don't know is even accurate because you and me have seen it at least a couple of times). G-Toasty (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canturbury West) line

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canturbury West) line

Sir Ottavio Missoni

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Sir Ottavio Missoni

Template:Kashmir Premier League

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Template:Kashmir Premier League

American financial crisis

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#American financial crisis

Putting wedge

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. MBisanz talk 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. My knowledge of golf is so-so regarding types of golf clubs; I've never heard of this specific phrase before, so I looked around third party search engines for a bit, and the subject of this redirect is most likely a type/subtopic of the target's subject, but a more specific article probably exists or could be made. At present, the two articles I could find that could be related to this topic are Wedge (golf) and Putter, and if I had to guess which one of the aforementioned topics the subject of this redirect s connected, it would be Wedge (golf), but this redirect isn't mentioned in that article either. With all of that being said, the best options here would probably be to retarget to Wedge (golf) or Putter (Wedge (golf) preferred) after adding a mention of this redirect to the respective article, or delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:R from grapheme

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 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible; graphemes are much more than just ligatures (and the target is not even about single ligatures but about titles spelt with them). Retargeting to {{R from symbol}} might be an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be far too broad. Retargeting to R to symbol seems incorrect, or at least too broad. Therefore I think deletion is probably best here. There was only one incoming link from mainspace, which I have replaced with R to ligature directly. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. What could be the intended use of such an rcat? {{R from ligature}} is for redirects like Æon –> Aeon. But what would redirects from graphemes look like? Redirects from an actual grapheme to the article about it (say Ж –> Zhe (Cyrillic)), or from a form with one grapheme to a form with another (which would subsume the rcats for ligatures and diacritics)? If there's no explanation here, then I'd agree with deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Minor characters associated with quidditch

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Minor characters associated with quidditch

Londongrad

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 30#Londongrad

Harry Potter's

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 Harry Potter. MBisanz talk 19:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect displays a form of ownership. (Over the years, redirects such as this one [with an 's at the end of the title] have been discussed at RFD and I believe more times than not, consensus has been to delete. Unfortunately, I cannot find any examples at the moment, so I can't provide any examples.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless. You can just add "'s" after the ]] of the link. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a sentimental attachment to a redirect that has been around almost untouched since 2003 and dates from the era when people without accounts could create articles too. That's not a policy-based rationale, though. And I do put both s and 's after internal links, not in them. Trying for a policy-based rationale, I cannot see that any of the reasons for deletion apply. And the fact that we already have one userspace draft that accidentally links this indicates that this is a useful mis-spelling redirect, even if none of us here would create such a link. So setting aside sentiment, I think that I agree with Tavix. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Tavix's reasoning that possessive redirects such as this are useful in linking and otherwise harmless. That being said, it is currently correctly targeted because any use of the possessive is more likely to be in reference to the character (as is the case in Tavix's example) and not the series of novels (or film series or other aspects of the franchise). Mdewman6 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. Has views, that could maybe potentially perhaps be harmed by the deletion of this redirect. Who knows. Likely a safer bet to keep it. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nstitute of Aerospace Sciences

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable typo. We're not chopping off the first letters of words for redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A different arrangement of words is one thing; misspellings are another. The correctly-spelled redirect is in place; delete this one. Xenophore; talk 04:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a typo. Delete. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blue Friday

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Blue Friday

WP:B

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#WP:B

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_21&oldid=1108197905"