Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14

October 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2021.

歌

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 speedy deleted by Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

歌 → Song (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no special affinity between Chinese or Japanese and songs. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 14 October 2021 (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.

BBUS

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 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBUS → Big Brother (American TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no mention of "BBUS" in the article and although there is occasional use of this redirect, it is ambiguous with BBus (a redirect to Bachelor of Business), and there's no way to tell what the searcher wanted. I suggest delete as ambiguous and likely to lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BBUS is the ticker code for a non-notable ETF, I didn't get any results that were not for that until the third page of my Google search. The TV show didn't come up at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:02, 14 October 2021 (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.

Primary/replica (technology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#Primary/replica (technology)

Let’s Go Brandon

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 moot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s Go Brandon → Kelli Stavast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Let’s Go Brandon! → Kelli Stavast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Considered a SPEEDY on this, but there's no category this fits into, and it's obviously controversial. We thought we dealt with this on the F**k Joe Biden AfD, but now because a poor NASCAR reporter (the current rd target) tried to resourcefully drown out a profane chant of that on broadcast television (while interviewing Brandon Brown), this has become the 'work appropriate' way for a certain 'always online' minority to denigrate the President. Once this passes, it'll mean nothing to redirect to Brandon Brown, or Kelli Stavast. On a more technical note, a curly apostrophe rather than a straight apostrophe is used in the rd, meaning most people can't get to it anyways. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ ~~as G8, and salt as the only plausible retarget would be to the aforementioned Fuck Joe Biden article that has been deleted per SNOW consensus. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Retarget to Public image of Joe Biden per Ganesha811 or Delete per Beccaynr below. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that searching for "Let's go Brandon" (straight apostrophe) on wiki led me to this redirect anyway. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @GhostOfDanGurney: this is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8 as the current target exists. Regardless of whether that target is correct is irrelevant to that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline implausible, but in any case, the aforementioned AfD consensus should apply here as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also found Let’s Go Brandon! which redirects to the same target. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The curled quote is what's nominated here. Let's Go Brandon! with a straight single quote (which is what most keyboards are setup to output by default) is a redlink. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added Let’s Go Brandon! to this nomination as they should either be both kept, both deleted or both retargetted to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw the exclamation point now; the quote marks were puzzling me more than the "!", to be honest. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both of these redirects originally targetted Brandon Brown (racing driver), which seems a better (i.e. less surprising) target for someone who is unfamiliar with the phrase but I'm not sure they're good redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rdr. to Brandon Brown The FJB chant doesn't need any explanation. The LGB chant makes no sense on its own & therefore some sort of encyclopedic explanation would benefit readers. There is a well-sourced paragraph in the Brandon Brown article re: LGB. A reader trying to figure out the LGB chant would see the phrase & explanation in the article. Meets the purpose of a redirect: Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.). If there wasn't a purposeful & verified mention in the article, then there would be nothing to rdr. to, but it is logical to rdr. to Brown.
Re: the curly apostrophe, that was from cutting & pasting from a website rather than typing it in (I have my browser set up when I highlight a word it searches WP). That can be remedied by moving the rdr. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph mentioned on Brandon Brown (racing driver) fails WP:10YT. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That meme alone is her claim to fame, it's being widely reported about. It's newsworthy for the BBC, The Independent, Newsweek, The Spectator, and others, so it's notable here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58878473

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maga-lets-go-brandon-meme-biden-b1938322.html

https://www.newsweek.com/lets-go-brandon-meme-explained-1637434

https://spectator.org/lets-go-brandon

https://www.businessinsider.com/lets-go-brandon-chant-origin-video-what-does-it-mean-2021-10

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3849893/what-does-lets-go-brandon-meme-mean

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article255093152.html

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/10/18/joke-anti-biden-song-lets-go-brandon-goes-viral-tops-itunes-hip-hop-chart

tickle me 07:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another cited example of the term's cultural notability: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the post of Tickle me just above. This phrase is not just getting massive hits in social media and is growing, but you can now purchase T-shirts and other gear. This re-direct may become a full article soon. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it isn't mentioned in the redirect target. If someone wants to turn the title into an article that's one thing, but there's no point in sending readers to a page which doesn't cover it at all just because it's the closest thing we have. Hut 8.5 17:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also happy with retarget to Public image of Joe Biden, which mentions it and where it's more likely to be suitable. Hut 8.5 11:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete Neither Kelli Stavast nor Brandon Brown (racing driver) currently contain information about the recent meme/song/merchandising created by others for political/artistic/commercial purposes. I have also commented in the pending RfC about "Let's go Brandon" where inclusion in Brandon Brown (racing driver) is being discussed, and in the pending Kelli Stavast AfD about my concerns related to adding such content to those articles, so I incorporate those concerns here by reference. In the Stavast AfD, it is noted Draft:Let's Go Brandon! has been created, but an expansion into an article at this time, or an attempt at recreating Fuck Joe Biden due to this recent burst of news, both seem discouraged by WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or turn into independent article: Per User:Tickle me. This phrase has received significant media coverage and certainly deserves its own article, not merely a redirect. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Tickle me and it fullfills WP:NOTE with so much media notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public image of Joe Biden, where I have added a reliably sourced sentence re: this chant. It's the most appropriate page, to avoid WP:BLP1E concerns. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Public image of Joe Biden. I think this has gotten large enough to warrant explanation somewhere. Doesn't seem a good idea to point to either the reporter or to the driver. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this is probably too RECENT but the sourcing certainly suggests it is NOTEABLE. Ideally I would say put this on hold for 3 months so we would have better clarity as to how this all develops. Will it be a short term thing or will it be discussed months from now. Redirect is a decent alternative but again, the RECENT aspect would apply there as well. So if there is a way to delay going live and put this on hold, do that. Else, keep or retarget. Springee (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to article. The disambiguation at Let's Go Brandon (Loza Alexander song) is unwarranted. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Public image of Joe Biden as an interim before this inevitably becomes an article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted Let's go, Brandon as an article; these can now be re-targeted there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a quote by Kelli Stavast. Unless the quote gets its own article, this is most appropriate as a redirect to her bio. Banana Republic (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is now an article at this name so this RFD discussion is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Liz this should just be closed. With the article the target is obvious. If the article is deleted then I guess this can be reopened but there's no point otherwise and it wouldn't be right to turn this into an AFD so if someone does feel the article should be deleted they need to open a proper AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2021 (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.

Xus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21#Xus

Atheist logo

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 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist logo → Atomic whirl (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous, e.g. might also point to Variations of the ichthys symbol#Parodies, Flying Spaghetti Monster#Internet phenomenon, or especially something related to Atheist Alliance International, among many others that exist (and potentially might cover) and might be brought up below. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were a citation for "...has come to be used as a symbol of atheism in general" then that would be different. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2021 (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.

Mortal Kombat (2010 film)

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 02:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat (2010 film) → Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such Mortal Kombat film came out in 2010, and there's no mention of a previous 2010 release date. The article for the reboot though does mention a short film that came out in 2010 in the production section. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deleting the article entirely - Enter Movie (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finish it as it might cause confusion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 14 October 2021 (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.

Republicanism in Northern Ireland

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. I withdraw my proposal. (non-admin closure) Somerby (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in Northern Ireland → Irish republicanism#Republicanism in Northern Ireland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Northern Irish republicanism → Irish republicanism#Republicanism in Northern Ireland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Ulster nationalism. Because this is not at all the same as Irish nationalism. Rather, the opposite movement. As a last resort, a disambiguation page page should be created, I just created a disambiguation page English republicanism, because English republicanism can have two completely different meanings. Somerby (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How commonly is this thought called republicanism? The term isn't used in the article at all. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Northern Irish person, never. Republicans in Northern Ireland are subset of Irish nationalists. Their direct counterpart on the other side of the community are Loyalists. Retargeting to Ulster nationalism doesn't make sense. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unionists who support a British republic also exist in Northern Ireland. Therefore a disambiguation page page should be created. I added a section too. --Somerby (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I appreciate your good faith additions, but that new section is unsourced. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a disambiguation page be created? Unionists by definition want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom; Loyalists want Northern Ireland to remain loyal to the Queen. The two are not synonymous, but the fraction of people who are republican Unionists (i.e. want to see a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) or loyal "separatists" (i.e. want to see a Kingdom of Northern Ireland, headed by Elizabeth II and her rightful successors) or royalist separatists (i.e. want to see a Kingdom of Northern Ireland, headed by some other monarch) is very small, and anyone who wants a Northern Irish republic by definition must also want independence from the United Kingdom.

You're making it way too complicated, we really do not to cover each of the possible combinations of {UK, GB, Wales, Scotland, NI, England} × {republicanism/loyalism, independence/unionism} in separate articles or disambiguation pages. The aim of redirects or disambiguation pages is to get readers to where they want to go. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the IP directly above me. In common usage the current target is correct, and while there probably are people who support the other possible meanings they are so few in number as to be non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is purely hearsay of course, but from an unofficial survey (pop: 1) my friend in County Armagh, Northern Ireland when asked the question "What do you think of Northern Irish republicanism"? had no idea what I was talking about. (She calls Northern Ireland "The North" for example, which is a giveaway that she'd prefer a united Ireland). She's never heard of wanting an independent Northern Ireland, and believe you me, Northern Irish people are very politically aware. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:20, 14 October 2021 (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.

Striped Sweater

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striped Sweater → SpongeBob SquarePants#Music 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another song not mentioned on Wikipedia, certainly not any SpongeBob article, since SpongeBob SquarePants: The Yellow Album was redirected to the main show's article. I'm leaning toward deleting this, but if it's kept, the closest target I can think of would be Marinière, another name for which translates to English as "striped sweater." Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 23:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to sweater. I've tried a search, but I remember an RfD from a few years ago about various sweater Rs, which I think the consensus was to retarget them to sweater. I've looked through the history and find no mention, though: @PamD: you moved Pullover(garment) in 2017, but that was just a technical move, I'm struggling to find the discussion. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Marinière per nom, as the only available article on the subject. Jay (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambiguous and likely to cause confusion (Sweater, Marinière, Dennis the Menace, Where's Wally?...) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly generic, unlikely to be an encyclopedic topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (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.

Gallic nationalist

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. Consensus is that there is not suitable target for this redirect at present. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallic nationalist → Irish nationalism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Gallic nationalism → French nationalism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Gallic has nothing to do with Ireland, Gallic describe ancient Gaul (Latin: Gallia), roughly corresponding to the territory of modern France. If not delete, then retarget to French nationalism. Somerby (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to French nationalism. This is an old redirect, going back to July 2005. Results for "Gallic nationalism" -wikipedia are a mixed bag of nationalist currents in actual ancient Gaul and contemporary French nationalism (e.g., the WSJ's "Gallic nationalism has always been at least a partial factor driving France's promotion of European integration..."). Calling the former "nationalism" feels anachronistic (from Nationalism: "Scholars frequently place the beginning of nationalism in the late 18th century or early 19th century..."), even though clearly it's something other scholars have done. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD to French nationalism. I imagine "Gallic" here comes from a mis-hearing of ""Gaelic", the two are homophonous in some parts of the island of Ireland to my personal knowledge (not RS of course). "Gallic" has always meant "French". Gaelic nationalist and Gaelic nationalism target Irish nationalism, this is not quite WP:SMALLDETAILS but might deserve a hatnote at each target.85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to French nationalism only if the proposed target mentions contemporary Gallic nationalism (per User:BDD), or provides context, such as Gallic pride. Vercingétorix monument says Napoleon III saw Vercingetorix as a symbol of Gallic nationalism, but this could be WP:OR probably because the inscription mentions "nation", and I have tagged it for a citation needed. Although the redirect stayed for 15 years, I would suggest to delete as a case of a redirect that makes no sense any more and a novel or very obscure synonym. Jay ^(Talk) 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the verdict is delete, also delete Gallic nationalism created by nom 2 days back, and which targets to French nationalism. Jay ^(Talk) 10:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Straight synonyms are one of, if not the only, situations where I really don't mind an {{R without mention}}. For many topics, listing all potential synonyms or forms is neither desirable nor practical, and I think an unexplained redirect generally has the effect of communicating to readers, "these are the same thing". Why I'm still a weak retarget here is that while there are straight synonym uses, like the WSJ one I quoted above, I do see some potential for confusion absent explanation. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's also the option of targetting Gaullism, as a {{R from typo}} for both Gallic nationalism and Gallic nationalist -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to Gallic (a DAB) - there is no clear meaning for the term. It could be a misspelling of Gaelic, or Gaullism, or refer to Chicken Run and Gallus gallus. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of redirecting anywhere without a discussion of this. I think we've established this is a "thing", but I struggle to see a good target. Gauls is intriguing to me, especially Gauls#Modern reception which frames the Gauls in the context of the modern French nation. However I still think it might not be close enough, which leaves me at delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 30 October 2021 (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.