Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2023.

Marley[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 procedural keep. Nominated by a sockpuppet of English Patriot Man with no further support. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Marley should redirect to Bob Marley because there are various places with the name, a Peerage in the UK and a type of flooring with the name. The article Marley (disambiguation) shows that there's more to the name than the singer Bob Marley. The singer Bob Marley is never known just by his surname.--Abdul Akter (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It seems like the WP:PTOPIC for Marley is Bob Marley. Even from the DAB, which people have most likely gotten to from the hatnote on Bob Marley, 25% clickthrough to Bob Marley's page. A secondary proposal is a weak retarget to Marley (surname) as nothing else on that DAB has gotten more than 15% of the traffic. TartarTorte 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above and the majority of search results relate to Bob Marley. CROIX (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. It's the clear Primary topic - Bob Marley is known world-wide, whereas the peerage is known to a much smaller group of people, and the flooring only to people in the theatre and dance world. I'm surprised that the nom didn't note "Jacob Marley" from Dickens' A Christmas Carol, who is known much more widely than either of their examples, but still not more than the performer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear primary topic for the term, the other uses are very obscure by comparison. Hut 8.5 12:58, 24 February 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).

Kwarteng[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 procedural close. The nominator is a sockpuppet, but also because this should be a move request. The action desired would be a move of Kwarteng (surname) to Kwarteng. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect to Kwasi Kwarteng. The article Kwarteng (surname) shows that there are other people with them and I don't see any strong evidence that Kwasi Kwarteng is the primary topic for the surname internationally (in the UK, more than likely yes). Abdul Akter (talk) 23:23, 23 February 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).

Neo-amphibia[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. Legoktm (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, not finding any evidence this is another term for mudskippers Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searching "Neo-amphibia", I wasn't able to find anything relevant; the only results were fictional species (in the genre of speculative biology) including the fictional "Periophthalmus neoamphibia (which might explain this redirect). As a note, the editor who created the redirect has been blocked indefinitely.
The most promising result I found was actually this link for Neoamphibia without the hyphen, which uses it as the name of a taxonomic group encompassing Dipneusti (another obsolete group which included Dipnoi, that is, lungfish). Wikipedia doesn't appear to have coverage of this historic classification, and I suspect most helpful sources are only available in print so adding a mention somewhere might be difficult. Regardless, this use is unhyphenated. Best to delete the hyphenated form and let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, book or internet, that states the name "Neo-amphibia" in this context. Only fictional species stated. The editor that created the page likely found fictional species or invented content that connect "Neo-amphibia" to mudskippers. The link to "Neo-amphibia" above is the only source that states "Neo-amphibia" scientifically, but even if "Dipneusti" exists, it is usually regarded as a subclass of Dipnoi, and does not include mudskippers in both classifications. Jj1691 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 14:11, 25 February 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).

Airthings Masters[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. Duh, I can make this dab page now. Don't know why I thought of RFD immediately. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could refer to a tournament in 2021 or 2022 (Champions Chess Tour 2022#Airthings Masters). Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB: The 2022 edition of the tournament was no more notable than the 2021 instance of the tournament, so a DAB seems the most sense between the two to get people where they want to go and could possibly be expanded into an article about the tournament if the tournament itself is notable. TartarTorte 20:33, 23 February 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).

Smash burger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Smash burger

Template:Country data Second Republic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Template:Country data Second Republic

Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss[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 speedy delete under WP:G6. [deleted by MSGJ] (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These protected pages may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because they are redirects left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:44, 23 February 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).

Template talk:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss[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 Speedy delete WP:G6. These redirects were nominated for deletion by NmWTfs85lXusaybq bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23#Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss; however, the talk redirects below were speedy deleted by Cyrius, so I have broken them out to procedurally close this portion. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 22:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were nominated for deletion by NmWTfs85lXusaybq bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23#Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss; however, the talk redirects below were speedy deleted by Cyrius, so I have broken them out to procedurally close this portion. TartarTorte 22:48, 23 February 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).

Atari VCS (2018 console)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Atari VCS (2018 console)

Communio in sacris[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 Full communion. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 20:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The few uses of "communio in sacris" I have found ([1]; "Communion in Holy Things in the Old Testament", Alan Ludwig; [2]) do not refer to the Catholic concept. I do not know what this expression is supposed to refer to.

Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Full communion, which uses the exact phrase communio in sacris at both Full communion § Anglican Communion and Full communion § Catholic Church. Deletion would not be helpful. A number of online sources (eg. [3]) and publications (eg. [4], [5], [6], [7]) use this exact phrase in relation to Roman Catholicism. Other sources, including those found by the nominator, use it in relation to Anglicanism. Full communion is currently the best target for all these uses. – Scyrme (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept this redirect proposal as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 22:19, 23 February 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).

Penile-vaginal intercourse[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 Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. Hut 8.5 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target term not mentioned at all in the article. Colgatepony234 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's mentioned in the target article under the definition section in paragraphs 2 through 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, withdraw this discussion, I went a little fast on this one. I suggested this one for deletion because of Penile sex being deleted in 2019, but guess I was a bit too fast on this one. Colgatepony234 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 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).

Template:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity)[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 speedy delete under WP:G8. [deleted by MSGJ] (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These protected pages may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because they are redirects left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are not eligible for R3 speedy deletion as they were not recently created. Per the reference tool tip at WP:CSD R3, The definition of recent is intentionally flexible since some pages may receive more notice than others. Pages older than about 3–6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently recreated; pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are. These were all created (from a page move) on August 1, 2018. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK for @Primefac to speedy delete Template:Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list, a redirect from implausible typos created by MSGJ at 11:30, 19 June 2015, under criteria WP:R3. I prefer {{Db-error}} or WP:G6 in this kind of situation, although Liz mentioned what seems "uncontroversial" to one editor may not be to another. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I know that I, and probably other admins and editors, are reluctant to edit or delete template pages because of the potential for them to affect other articles where they are transcluded. There are editors and admins who focus on templates (peruse WP:TFD to become familiar with them) and, in general, I think it is best to approach one of these editors or admins for help when you are seeking a template deletion. This is general advice, I know I advised you to come here when I thought you were just trying to delete a redirect. As for CSD G6s, opinions vary widely on when this is an appropriate criteria to use. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, thanks for your advice. It's OK for me to ask help from template editors as well. However, these template redirects are supposed to be listed here according to WP:TFD#NOT. For the potential of being transcluded in other articles, editors and admins may check What links here. As I said, these redirects are left over from moving an editnotice that was obviously created at the name of wrong form, which is exactly what {{Db-error}} means. And you can check the edit summary of its first revision tagged by New redirect to confirm that. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G8 since Notcensored (nudity), the page which would be using such an edit notice at the nominated redirect's title, does not exist. (I'm adding this though the page has since been speedy deleted in the event it gets restored.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 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).

Template talk:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity)[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 Speedy delete WP:G6. These redirects were nominated for deletion by NmWTfs85lXusaybq bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23#Template:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity); however, the talk redirects below were speedy deleted by Cyrius, so I have broken them out to procedurally close this portion. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were nominated for deletion by NmWTfs85lXusaybq bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23#Template:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity); however, the talk redirects below were speedy deleted by Cyrius, so I have broken them out to procedurally close this portion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:43, 24 February 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).

Penile-penile sex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 5#Penile-penile sex

Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church

Template:Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list[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 speedy delete under WP:R3 - this is clearly a typo in the title, and it will never work anyway, so I went ahead and speedied it. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it is a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:12, 23 February 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).

Ümlaut[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. Consensus is now overwhelmingly clear. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 15:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete, as while there are a few instances of this spelling online, it is incorrect, and we don't want to mislead readers into thinking otherwise. While it's a relatively old redirect, the page views are rather negligible and it will not likely be missed. If consensus is to keep, it could at the very least be soft retargeted the Wiktionary entry of this nonstandard spelling. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Umlaut (diacritic). While most users would need to go somewhat out of the way to provide the diacritic, this does suggest to me that they'd be looking for information on it. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the spirit of an R from misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and R from misspelling. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and it seems both a plausible misspelling and it does occur. Keep as opposed to retarget since Metal umlaut seems a plausible intended target and that's more easily found from the disambiguation page (as well as the diacritic). Skynxnex (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The majority of search results for "Ümlaut" bring up proper nouns; they don't yet have articles, but some have mentions on Wikipedia (eg. Alexei Rodriguez). It seems plausible to me that someone searching this would not be looking for a misspelling of "umlaut" but would actually be looking for a topic named Ümlaut. Best for it to go to a disambiguation page. – Scyrme (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are entries on the dab page which use this spelling, and it is also (in my opinion) a reasonable if unlikely search term for Umlaut (diacritic), so the dab page seems the most appropriate target. A7V2 (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – better to disambiguate than to assume we know what a reader searching for this unusual spelling is looking for. Might be worth adding wikt:ümlaut to the {{Wiktionary}} template at the disambiguation page. If we do retarget, I think Two dots (diacritic) is a better target than Umlaut (diacritic). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead an added the suggested Wikitionary addition. – Scyrme (talk) 23:52, 26 February 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).

Angelic Salutation[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! 15:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and re-add mention. This was given as an alternate name when the redirect was created ([8]), and is given in, for example, Britannica ([9]). A7V2 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention has been added to target, but is unsourced, and I have tagged it as {{citation needed}}. Britannica is a teritary source, so I did not use it for citing, especially in the lead of an article where the alternate name is not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Jay 💬 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added a cited reason on why the prayers is called Angelical Salutation. --Lenticel (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep particularly per the work done. Skynxnex (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Lenticel Referencer12 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 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).

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM[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 Jesus, King of the Jews#INRI and ΙΝΒΙ. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated for deletion here and I can't imagine anybody who would type this in all caps to get here. If it's deleted, we could add it to Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles :) ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: I'm certainly not an expert on Christianity, but every time I see this phrase it's phrased as INRI, so the all-caps (combined with the u to v and ae to æ) make sense. TartarTorte 02:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's right there in the article, they only had caps at the time. Drapetomanic (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible caps per TartarTorte's reason --Lenticel (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or refine as Natg 19 suggested below) - classical Latin texts are often archaically rendered in all-caps, since writing in the Latin script was unicameral until the Middle Ages. That this is intended here is clear from the use of "V" rather than "U". This exact phrase, in all caps, is used at the present target, and likewise appears on a number of external online pages as well as in a number of publications (examples of which can be found on Google Books). If this was just a random Latin sentence I could see a case for deleting it, but this phrase historically features prominently in Christian art; the titulus crucis usually appears in majuscule when it is spelled out in full rather than abbreviated in these contexts, so it is especially likely to be quoted in this form. (Although the use of Æ can vary; in some cases AE or even simply E is used.) – Scyrme (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Jesus, King of the Jews#INRI and ΙΝΒΙ, where this exact text is mentioned. Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with Refine target as well --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refine target per @Natg 19. As FYI, it had 54 pageviews last year, per Pageviews Analysis. (Also included Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum & IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM in link for reference.) Referencer12 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_23&oldid=1143099982"