Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

March 29

edit

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

Yanny\ or\ Laurel

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5#Yanny\ or\ Laurel

Killed yourself

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. Jay 💬 20:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No value as a search term or link, therefore not redirect-worthy. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Outline of Palestine (disambiguation)

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. Jay 💬 20:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly led to Outline of Palestine (moved to Outline of Modern Palestine with its history), which was a disambiguation between what is now Outline of Israel and Outline of the State of Palestine, the latter being the current target of Outline of Palestine.
No such DAB page seems to exist anymore, and the current target isn't useful, so this is likely an uncontroversial deletion. Currently leads to Palestine, a disambiguation page, so not eligible for WP:G14, and it doesn't seem to fall under other speedy deletion criteria either. Randi Moth TalkContribs 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

2010 Keswick coach accident

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 – bad faith nomination by block-evading sock. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable Chikn Nuggit (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – This request was made by a new account 12 minutes after it became active, four days after creation. Please compare the recent edit history of the redirect, which caused me to protect it. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

U-Stor-It

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. Jay 💬 06:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, not sure of what the connection is. Onel5969 TT me 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or expand into its own article about the storage company. Note that the redirect was created with the message the term U-Stor-It featured prominently in the novel Snow Crash, alternatively, there's an actual company as well ustorit.com if someone wants to create an article for that which is insufficient as, for example, tables are featured prominently in novels.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Big'uns

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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has a minor mention as the (parody) magazine at the target which is of a fictional character. An external search associates the magazine more with multiple characters of the sitcom Married... with Children, than with a single character. The sitcom article also has a mention, but as the BigUns magazine. The magazine name in the sitcom is shown as BIG 'UNS [1]

At a recently closed RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Bigun, while I had initially suggested a disambiguation with the Dayna Danger work Big 'Uns, I thought the Al Bundy reference is too minor to be kept as a redirect. I would prefer deletion, but am open to other suggestions as well. Jay 💬 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Star Life

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. The core question was whether there is a primary topic for "Star Life". To the extent that this questions was discussed, there appears to be rough consensus against a primary topic. This means that Star Life should become a disambiguation page (but after moving the page at this title out of the way: it had been turned into an article in the meantime). If editors would like to revisit the question in greater depth, then they can start an RM discussion at any time. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Life can be also refer to Latin American TV channel John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion because I can decide if I can either keep the redirection or disambiguate it. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

First President of the United States

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to Presidency of George Washington.

Reason: while readers might be interested in George Washington, I think the title is more related to his presidency. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – On the contrary, people looking/searching for "First President of the United States" would probaby expect to be directed to the biographical article on the person. Drdpw (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and found that the other "#" president of the United States pages redirect to the respective president's biographical article. I also found that pages, such as Washington administration, redirect to the person's presidency article. Drdpw (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First President is most likely looking for the individual, not his tenure. Estar8806 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

PRussian invasion of Ukraine

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 speedily deleted as G3 (presumably). (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is misleading, as Prussian is a redirect to Prussia which itself was involved in historic conflicts with political entities in the Ukraine. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this might be a typo, yes it seems odd. I agree this needs deleting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible typo, completely changes the meaning. Unless there's a relevant diambig it could direct to instead that involves conflicts between Prussia and Ukrainian entities. — Czello 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it implausible? @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"P" and "R" are not near each other on a standard keyboard. — Czello 16:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The meaning is different when referring to Prussian vs Russia. The capitalization would of "PR" would also make it unnecessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I suggested R3 on the article's talk page to save editor time, but since we're here now, let's just handle it here. There is the obvious issue that Prussia is a historical entity and thus should not be confused with Russia. There is further the implausibility of Prussia arising as a simple typo in place of Russia as the r key and the p key are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard layout. I suppose now's my chance to say that we don't need to create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects to address every possible typo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my other comments @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There is no article called "Prussian invasion of Ukraine". It is a plausible typo of someone accidently hitting the p key. With an article with a total 50 million views (including redirects), probably hundreds have made this typo. Also, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I doubt anyone who types PRussian invasion of Ukraine by accident means to go anywhere but the Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. @Hey man im josh @Mvqr @Czello @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really that plausible given the positions of the keys on the keyboard? Should we have "ERussian invasion of Ukraine" as well if we're basing it strictly on keys accidently being hit? Even if it were, I'd still vote delete based on the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalization is more likely than not @Hey man im josh I do agree that ERussian Invasion of UKraine should be a redirect @Hey man im josh Starship 24 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Why is the typo plausible (when the P and R keys are not near each other on the keyboard)? Why not have a LRussian Invasion of Ukraine, or ORussian Invasion of Ukraine, or MRussian Invasion of Ukraine? — Czello 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those should all exist too. @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship 24: By this logic, every article should have enough redirects to include every possible typo (letters, numbers, and symbols) at the start of the title. Hell, why stop there? We could also have a typo in every space between letters, too. — Czello 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For @Starship 24: since I think it still could've been created in good faith: "Plausible search term" is used as in "It is plausible for a person searching for the target article to enter this term" rather than the other way around as you probably are using it here: "It is plausible for a person entering this term to search for the target article". In this case, it's a plausible typo in the manner that a person making it will likely be searching for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is implausible (yet not impossible) in evaluating the chance of a person that's searching for the Russian invasion of Ukraine making the exact same typo. Since it's highly unlikely for any given person to make this typo out of the infinite ways to misspell it, this redirect will almost never see any use, and so is more WP:COSTLY than it is useful, making deleting it more beneficial than keeping. Randi Moth TalkContribs 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for telling me. By the way, why is there two contradictory policies (Redirects are cheap and Redirects are costly)? @Randi Moth Starship 24 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starship 24: those are essays (advice / opinions) not policy statements. Drdpw (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Shah Reza Pahlavi

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 Reza Shah. signed, Rosguill talk 02:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Reza Shah because the words "Shah Reza Pahlavi" has greater affinity to him. NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ANI AUTISM IP

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6#Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP

Kv bhu

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 Kendriya Vidyalaya BHU. signed, Rosguill talk 02:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. Could be a short form of KV Bhutan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Ferdinand I of Spain

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. Salvio giuliano 08:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambiguation between Ferdinand I of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, or should outright be deleted. While Ferdinand II of Aragon was the first Ferdinand to rule a (mostly) united Spain, he wasn't numbered as Ferdinand I. This is evidenced by the fact that the next Ferdinand to rule Spain was Ferdinand VI of Spain. This redirect feels extra strange considering that Ferdinand V of Spain also redirects to the same place. Estar8806 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Primus sucks

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. Salvio giuliano 08:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not proposed a discussion. You have proposed a deletion. Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand. Again: what are you trying to accomplish? Please be specific. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@C. A. Russell The nom clearly proposed deletion, so I bet they would like to accomplish the deletion of that redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously. That's not an especially helpful remark. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked.
The redirect has been proposed for deletion. By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of an unlikely search term that is not explicitly mentioned at the target. The name seems to be an attack, too. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It looks a bit like G10 to me, for what it's worth. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [2] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable.
I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you're talking about ("the redirect disparages the band"). It's not subjective. G10 has no relevance to this redirect. The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on "<X> sucks" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X.
Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim Reason 3 for not deleting covers this: They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. We have redirects from slogans/phrases associated with brands and such and even have a redirect category, Category:Redirects from slogans, to see some examples of other redirects tagged as a slogan. We won't have redirects for all slogans but given Rolling Stone, among others, have written about the redirect in question, it definitely meets WP:V as well as being something that exists outside of purely self-promotion. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect was not created by accident. "Removal of an unlikely search term", although it has been used by multiple respondents, is hard to parse and not recognizable as a problem, even if the factual premises are taken as true. Removing a working redirect, including the process of proposing the removal, only (a) consumes contributor/infrastructure resources rather than alleviate them and (b) leaves seekers who are benefiting from the redirect (however unlikely it is as a search term) staring at a search page rather than a revelant encyclopedia article. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to building consensus Carpimaps (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A comment: I'd like to get an answer to these questions, regardless of whether the deletion (or further discussion) proceeds.

  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider the strain on contributor resources that initiating such a process will entail in the event that the proposal should fail? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort check usage of the term(s) in a search engine such as Google? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect and leaving a notice on the article talk page, make a reasonable effort to look for the term(s) or a discussion of the redirect on that talk page? And if so, did you attempt to participate in that discussion? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort to check Special:Log for this redirect and include that in your consideration to proceed and/or include those findings and your rationale in the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable (but not necessarily exhaustive) effort to check if the term(s) might have once appeared in the article? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider some other time- and effort-saving alternative, such as asking someone informally about its existence (e.g. the person who created the redirect or some other interested or knowledgeable party)? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, verify that you are able to clearly articulate, if not to others then at least to yourself, the benefit of deleting it? (Please answer yes or no.)
  • Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider whether you would be able and/or willing to be responsive and participate in the discussion for the proposal in the event of an issue with the proposal, such as something that is unclear in the stated reasons or in the event of questions by others in response to the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)

Thanks. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owes you an answer to these. This appears to be a good faith nomination and the reason for nomination is obvious. I think you're taking this way too personally and need to relax. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the response "Nobody owes you an answer" comes from.
If the reason for the nomination is obvious, then perhaps instead of repeatedly insisting that it's obvious, just state what those obvious reasons actually are. (User:NotReallySoroka brought up attack pages, but the original requestor's intent doesn't seem to align with that concern.)
(I have addressed the ad hominem aspect of the other remarks elsewhere, and I'd prefer not to have this go even further off the rails.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the nom would really read through your wall of text that generates more heat that light. I would get it if you typed this up to defend yourself against allegations, but this isn't the case. On the contrary, the nom focussed on your redirect, while you accuse the nom of all those stuff. That's ANI-worthy behaviour from you right here. NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "while you accuse the nom of all those stuff": What are you talking about? I can kind of make out that you're making some assumptions here (and what those assumptions are) based on your comment (but not entirely)—it's like someone's intercepting messages or something, tweaking them, and forwarding them to you; only that's not what's happening: instead you're responding to some perceived but inaccurate subtext in what you're reading. Can you please stick to the discussion as it actually exists, rather than trying to read between the lines? The words I wrote are the ones I meant to write. If I meant something else, I would have written that. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not answer these, as you are almost to the point of badgering. Why are you typing out walls of text to defend this redirect? Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have clearly articulated my reason for this proposal: it does not appear to be a likely search term, especially to that target. If there was a page called "List of terms of endearment for Primus used by fans", okay. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think 8 of reasons to delete covers this: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my nomination. Whatever mess this has become, I don't want to deal with it. Leaving open for discussion as ineligible for SK1 (another editor has proposed deletion). Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Shah Pahlavi

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5#Shah Pahlavi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_29&oldid=1149988984"