Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 19

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

October 19

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2023.

Welsh Channel

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 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (in English or Welsh), and no inbound links. I have been unable to find any connection between the terms, but I could imagine someone being confused into thinking it was an alternative name. If I search duckduckgo.com[1], this sense is only used in links to Wikipedia and thefreedictionary (which I understand includes a partial mirror of Wikipedia), neither of which provide any explanation of the term. The other results are all media-related, most for S4C. It happens to be the name of part of a navigable route into the Dee Estuary[2], but no Dee-related article uses the term.

It's an old redirect (created in 2007), but it only had 140 views between 1/7/2015 at 1/9/2023, which suggests that any inbound links which might exist are rarely used.

I suggest that it should be deleted. A visitor would then be presented with search results for S4C, and anything else which could be created in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""Welsh Channel"". DuckDuckGo. Retrieved 19 October 2023.
  2. ^ "Map of Welsh Channel". streetmap.co.uk. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Cete (clade)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Cete (clade)

Proto-Artiodactyl

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Proto-Artiodactyl

Rock the Nation World Tour

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! 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I originally restored the article to open an AfD for its inclusion or deletion. I later withdrew per the suggestions given, so I am now opening an RfD regarding the article here. I do not believe that the article meets notability, and that it fails WP:NTOUR, so it looks that it meets the lines of deletion. I will also be nominating two other redirects for RfD which were also nominated in the AfD mentioned. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Native American clothing

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Native American clothing

Chechclear

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 27#Chechclear

Blue Line (Tokyo Metro)

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 23:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Line is not known as the "Blue Line", officially or not. Creator was indeffed for making several redirects like this. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jihadi terrorism

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Jihadi terrorism

Chandrayaan-6

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 27#Chandrayaan-6

Steeks

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 Steek. DAB/hatnote discussion can continue at Talk:Steek if desired, since it does not impact this RFD (the redirect would target the PTOPIC anyway). (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be the plural / present-tense of verb Steek, and is not exclusive to the Sikh article on this topic. Perhaps a disambiguation that also includes Steek (brand) can be made for the "Steek" article, with this redirect being used as an R-from-plural pointed at it. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it still be appropriate to create a Steek (disambiguation) page that covers this information, which would feature a link to Steek at its unchanged title? Utopes (talk / cont) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. While primary topic 2 is an acceptable disambiguation page, when the hatnotes are as clear and compact as they are at Steek there is no significant advantage to a dab over the hatnotes, hatnotes get people to their target in one click vs two clicks so are slightly preferable where possible. I've had a search and there isn't anything else that would be worthy of a dabmention - Cunningham Steam Wagon includes the phrase "carrying steek sleeves and differential gears" but upon investigation I find that's a typo for "steel" (that I'm about to correct), and Garth Steek is a councillor and failed mayor candidate in Winnipeg whose article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garth Steek (2nd nomination)). Everything else is a partial title match for examples of Sikh literature, parts of non-English phrases or eye-dialect for the speech of a comedy character (and not part of a catchphrase or similar). Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating the disambiguation page is the best solution Usingh0663 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be suitable to create a dab page? Or are the hatnotes more than enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regional university

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7#Regional university

Malenti

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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only appears once throughout the article as a uncited word on a table for a particular monster variant that is not referred to anywhere else. There is essentially nothing here that appears to be worth the redirect's target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as below…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Koalinth

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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only appears once throughout the article as a uncited word on a table for a particular monster variant that is not referred to anywhere else. There is essentially nothing here that appears to be worth the redirect's target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the improvements made by Daranios.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 June 2005 Zona Rosa attack

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this redirect is just a typo. There was no 19 June 2005 Zona Rosa attack, and there is nothing about it at the target article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jay. If there was no such attack on that date, there is no use in keeping an inaccurate redirect. Pageviews are extremely low (only 4 in the past year), so this does not appear to be a common error. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. As there was no attack in 2005, the date in the title, one needs to commit a series of errors to arrive at this date from either one of the actual dates, which suggests it's not plausible. Presidentman's data also supports implausibility. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

People's war in Bangladesh

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 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not established as a common name of reference in the article (Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8); also not used on a single page; also an example of blatantly pro-Maoist ideological language. Similar redirects have been submitted by the same user about similar conflicts in Turkey, the Philippines and Nepal, though it at least appears that in these cases, the term "People's War" is at least mentioned on the Wikipedia pages in question – though all four redirects currently have a grand total of zero Wikipedia pages that point to any of them. Ted52 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iranian Navy's first round-the-world voyage

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 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian Navy's first round-the-world voyage" does not seem to be an accepted or widespread name for the fleet's circumnavigation of the globe, and is not listed as such in the article. See Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8. Additionally, not a single page links to this redirect anyway, and it seems unlikely that there ever will be one. Ted52 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iranian flotilla round-the-world mission

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 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian flotilla round-the-world mission" does not seem to be an accepted or widespread name for the fleet's circumnavigation of the globe. See Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, Rule 8. Additionally, not a single page links to this redirect anyway. Ted52 (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet

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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created from a reverted undiscussed page move, this is an unlikely mistaken search term and the creator of it expresses their own view that there are too many redirects now. Per Talk:Hugh Ellis-Nanney#Page move, this is not a correct title and baronets are nor referred to in this way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recently, I improved the Hugh Ellis-Nanney article from an original upgrade I conducted in 2021. I added the article move name to represent the title of baronet, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr. But now I'm told this is WP:MOS issue and not in the style of the baronets description. I found there to be numerous other article redirects regarding Hugh Ellis-Nanney, namely: Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, 1st Baronet, I think these 2 article redirects are unnecessary and should be deleted. But also there is the article which was a redirect until today, Ellis-Nanney baronets. I moved my text from the biography sections of the Hugh Ellis-Nanney article to the Ellis-Nanney baronets article to better represent the difference between a person and a family (baronet), therefore I suggest keeping the Ellis-Nanney baronets article. However, I propose the deletion of the unnecessary article redirects, again: Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney; Sir Hugh Ellis-Nanney, 1st Baronet. But, again I am undecided on the Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet redirect, despite MOS, because the Plas Gwynfryn (hall) mention could be used to better explain the place name of the baronetcy and display information for people searching the location of Gwynfryn near Criccieth in Wales. Cltjames (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cltjames are you aware this nomination is only about the redirect, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet, about which you say you are undecided, and not about Ellis-Nanney baronets, which is beyond the scope of "redirects for discussion"? Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:OK fine, I accept the correct article naming would be Ellis-Nanney baronets. However, Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet would be an acceptable article naming for a redirect. Perhaps instead, the Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr Baronetcy. However, I decided on the singular term, baronet, because there was only one baronet, Hugh Ellis-Nanney. Again, to reiterate, Plas Gwynfryn was well known in the area surrounding Criccieth in Gwynedd, North Wales. And I believe the redirect to be within the scope of the baronet's search area online, that is, considering the full title is, Ellis-Nanney baronets of Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr, therefore it should be kept for future reference for online users searching the hall (plas) as well as the baronets. Gwynfryn was a manor house as was Cefndeuddwr near Trawsfynydd, it would be a good addition to have these place names in the search engines for Wikipedia. Cltjames (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the manor house is not a baronet. These are arguments for a different redirect that is not for discussion here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for an opinion from someone who is not the redirect creator or nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag {{R from incorrect name}}. The article indicates that the original proper name of the baronetcy is "Ellis-Nanney Baronetcy of Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr", and from that it seems the redirect is an accurate search term for an article describing the baronets of that region (or house? this is a bit out of my element). No more useful target has been suggested, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_19&oldid=1183917316"