Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2022.

Harghita Mădăraş[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 23:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange redirect with no views in the last 30 days. This redirect is as if we had one called Utah Salt Lake City (Harghita is a province of Romania, and Mădăraș is a village on the country). Useless in my opinion. Super Ψ Dro 23:31, 14 January 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.

Help:Ref and similar[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 Help:Reference and point the rest to Help:Referencing for beginners. Among the multiple targets considered, only Help:Referencing for beginners had the support of all. Jay (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to H:REF expecting it to take me to a help page on references, and, when I went to go create the redirect, was surprised to see there's no consensus on what help page to target. This is a mixed-target conflict going back over a decade, but I don't give much weight to age or pageviews, since all of the targets except Help:Reference point to content on the same topic, and in many cases people may have linked one of these without actually looking at where they point to. As such, I think we should take readers to the broadest target available. I think Help:Reference is suboptimal but it gets decent pageviews and would be a significant substantive change in target topic, so probably better left untouched; but I've included it for the sake of completeness. So: Weak keep Help:Reference, synchronize rest at Help:Footnotes as broadest target available, but I think syncing at Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Inline citations (target of WP:REF and WP:REFS) would be reasonable too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ack, this is a mess, although maybe not quite as much as it might seem. The singular Help:Reference being the one to go to the ref desk makes some amount of sense, as we wouldn't have Help:References going there. Help:Referencing for beginners isn't that different from Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1; it just transcludes that page plus the others in that tutorial module. Help:Footnotes is the more advanced page. I think in this situation we should prioritize newcomers (meaning go with Help:Referencing for beginners or Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1), since most editors looking for help with references are newcomers learning how to add them. Experienced editors also have an easier time navigating to the page targeted at them than vice versa. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Help:Reference; retarget the rest to Help:Referencing for beginners or Help:Footnotes. I'm surprised Help:Referencing for beginners doesn't have a hatnote mentioning Help:Footnotes. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundling Help:Referencing. Courtesy pings @Sdkb and Qwerfjkl; no need to reply unless it changes your !votes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:38, 15 January 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.

UN Global Coronavirus Fund[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 United Nations response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Jay (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like United Nations response to the COVID-19 pandemic exists as a more specific target now, but this exact phrase is not used anywhere on the English Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 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.

CH3CH2Cl[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 Chloroethane. ✗plicit 23:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the chemical formula of chloroethane; not sure what exactly it has to do with the current target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 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.

United States women's national under-15 soccer team[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 23:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted to encourage actual article creation Seany91 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 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.

Novax Djokovic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26#Novax Djokovic

Another Word[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! 00:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed XY. Created as a redirect to Another World, now targets synonym. It's either a typo/misspelling for Another World or unnecessary capitalization of "another word" Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure it’s a real XY case here. Granted it was originally created as a redirect to another world but that changed to the current target a little over 3 hours after creation and has stood unopposed for over 6 years. I believe the fact that no one, in that period of time, has brought this issue up strongly indicated that people lookup up Another World are not misspelling it as Another Word meaning this appears to be an nonissue.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ip editor. There appears to be no ambiguity in actual usage. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term for synonym. A7V2 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 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.

Decimal chess[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Decimal chess

French ship Saint Pierre[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 French brig Colibri (1802). No objections since that was suggested. -- Tavix (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not concern French ship Saint Pierre. Another ship of that name is mentioned in a footnote, but I don't think that's enough for a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems I had a brainfart when creating that. It could be deleted, or turned into a shipindex page, as the French Navy had at least five vessels of that name, according to Threedecks. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mjroots. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirected to the right article, which I have done (as well as the wrongly-directed French brig Saint Pierre). Good idea to also have a shipindex page (personally, I favour a comprehensive List of ships named Saint Pierre, as there only seems to be this single French Navy one covered by an article at present. Davidships (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note user:Davidships changed the target to French brig Colibri (1802). It is usually discouraged to change the target of a redirect while it is being discussed here as that just leads to confusion - you should recommend the redirect be retargetted instead. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not appreciating that.Davidships (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we agree on French brig Colibri (1802) as the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:17, 14 January 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.

Red Tory Party (UK)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be a redirect; "Red Tory" does not refer to a specific political party, so this redirect is misleading and probably unhelpful. Proposed deletion. AFreshStart (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Red Tory#United Kingdom or Delete. I would have expected this to point to the Labour Party (UK) as a political insult, but google hits relevant to the UK are mostly about the Conservative Party (UK) under David Cameron's leadership and Red Tory#United Kingdom adds the Scottish Labour Party to the mix. That section does a good job of linking to wherever someone searching for this will be looking for, so it's probably the best target. I don't think a disambiguation page would work as it's not the proper name or a common nickname for any organisation. The (UK) suffix is plausible as "Red Tory" seems to be a more prominent political term in Canada, and it would not be unreasonable to expect Red Tory Party to lead to something relevant to that country )I've not looked in enough detail to opine on whether that link should be blue). Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:02, 14 January 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.

Miami Miracle[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 Miracle in Miami. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of uses of "Miami Miracle" are for the NFL football play also called the Miracle in Miami. The baseball team which used to be called the Miami Miracle (now the Fort Myers Mighty Mussels) is little-known and hasn't played under that name since 1991, so Miracle in Miami is probably the primary topic. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 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.

Heavy Duty (Transformers)[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or any of the (many) lists in Category:Lists of Transformers characters. It's hard to determine if there are any other articles mentioning the character in sufficient depth to retarget as the name's a common phrase, but I don't think we'd lose much by deleting this. (I don't know anything about Transformers.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:48, 14 January 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.

Anti-Marxism[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 Redirect the "anti-Marxism" redirects to Criticism of Marxism, the "anti-socialism" ones to Criticism of socialism, and 'Anti-Bolshevism' ones to Anti-bolshevism. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SenseiAC has suggested Anti-Marxist target Criticism of Marxism. I am added related redirects to consider for consistency. Also note that Anti-bolshevism is a dab (while the upper-case version listed above is a redirect). MB 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way, I suggest that Anti-socialist target Criticism of socialism. (Note: Anti-Leninist already targets Anti-Leninism.) For the "anti-bolshevik" series, maybe target them all to the dab page if the dab page is relevant, otherwise it is open to discussion. SenseiAC (talk) 15:22, 14 January 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.

"Get Morebooks!"[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 Withdrawn by nominator. So it can be renominated in batches. Jay (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
179 redirects to OmniScriptum

Each of these is apparently either an imprint or trade name used by OmniScriptum or an author who's published with them. None of them are mentioned in the target, though, so the reader is left none the wiser as to the connection between the term and the target (lists of imprints were in the article at the time the redirects were created). Several are additionally ambiguous, e.g. The (imprint) or Part Press, and several like these that are based on common words don't turn up any Google results indicating any connection at all (though others do). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Only the first page was tagged; I did the rest on behalf of the nominator. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that are unambiguous. An imprint or trade name isn't the kind of thing that always needs to be mentioned in an article. Given how many redirects are nominated and the fact-intensive-ness of whether a term is unambiguous, I would suggest to the nominator that a TRAINWRECK seems likely here, and that it might be better to nominate in a series of closely-related batches. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all without prejudice per Tamzin. Group these into smaller nominations of similar redirects that each have the same desired outcomee (i.e. don't mix those you think should be deleted with those you prefer to see retargetted and keep both sets separate from those you aren't sure about). Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the German-language article lists some of these. I will port over that list and its references. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English article has a table and list in its history, I went ahead and pulled that back in which goes a bit further in resolving the "not mentioned" problem, but it doesn't seem like we are all the way there... I am amenable to deleting any stragglers that still aren't mentioned because I fundamentally disagree with Tamzin's idea on redirects without mention. Also delete "Get Morebooks!" due to the quotes. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless anyone objects, looks like it's for the best if I withdraw this to avoid a trainwreck and renominate some or all of these in batches in due course, probably pending a discussion regarding whether the list and table restored in the target should be kept. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:41, 16 January 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.

Paul (singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Paul (singer)

Stan (fan)[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 Fan (person)#"Stan" fan. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was the result of a merge to Fan (person), targeting the resulting section Fan_(person)#"Stan"_fans as the outcome of requested move discussion and was recently boldly retargeted to its current target. I suggest it should be retargeted back to the target of the merge, where more detail exists. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support More logic target. Another option could be pointing it to Stan Twitter. Gaioa (T C L) 18:20, 16 January 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.

Reich Ministry of Justice[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 Restore article - specifically this revision. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not covered on the linked article besides a bare mention. I think it should be deleted to encourage article creation (see de:Reichsjustizministerium) (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, delete. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to pre-redirect version and tag it for translation from the German article. Jay (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Jay. Almost always better to un-BLAR than to redlink. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 14 January 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.

Beit Shemesh Engines Ltd.[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No substantial information about the company in the city article, misleading to redirect there. BilCat (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to § Economy, where it's mentioned. Although that section is unsourced, so if the mention is removed, the redirect should be deleted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Western industrial zone mentioned at that section is the Lavi industrial zone, we can cite it with this Jerusalem Post article. Jay (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:59, 14 January 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.

Photosensitize[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Photosensitize

PRJ[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a name of the place but PRJ can refer to many things and acronyms, should we disambiguate it? Vitaium (talk) 05:17, 14 January 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.

Männerbund[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 13:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Men's league" or "men's union" I guess is the English-language equivalent of this term? ('Bund' is cognate of 'bond' in English, I believe) "Fraternity" would probably be the closest equivalent in English (and seemed to be what this article redirected to in the first place), but I think it's probably best we delete this as a redirect on Wikipedia to possibly make way for a good, encyclopaedic article on the German concept. Thoughts? AFreshStart (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete more or less per nom, a GScholar search and my own familiarity with the term suggest that Männerbund is treated as a special term for the German concept in English, and is not reducible to Fraternity or Secret society, particularly given its role in Nazi ideology. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", I'm relisting after the existence of Mannerbund was brought to my attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Kóryos contains In Indo-European studies, the modern German term Männerbund (literally 'alliance of men') is often used to refer to the *kóryos. MB 02:27, 14 January 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.

Aprotic solvent[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 Polar aprotic solvents. Jay (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect; source and destination are two different terms CrafterNova (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R from antonym}}. I think this gives the cleanest definition for aprotic solvent. I considered retargeting to Solvent#Solvent_classifications, but that is somewhat misleading in implying only polar solvents can be aprotic; technically, all non-polar solvents are also aprotic. There is a link to part of that section via the redirect polar aprotic solvent. Both of these pages could use a little revision vis à vis protic vs. aprotic. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 14 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_14&oldid=1068145580"