Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 7

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

February 7

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2024.

Gay sexual practices

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 with hatnote, which was already added to the current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be made into a disambiguation page, as the term may refer to sexual practices between women or sexual practices between women. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2024 (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).

Allied angles

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Allied angles

Worst argument

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. Also the G3 tagger on whose behalf this RfD was created, had retracted. Jay 💬 09:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a G3 speedy deletion for this redirect on the grounds that "worst argument" is a common topic. However, the target section doesn't discuss the concept of a "worst argument" (the article mentions in passing in the references section the idea of a "worst argument in the world", which is not a terribly good sign), so I don't know where this redirect should go actually. Duckmather (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a justification for my redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idealism&oldid=859795092 used to discuss https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html . Then someone removed the discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Stove's concept of "worst argument" is well-documented in the literature. Deleting the page is completely unjustified. Please retarget the concept to its creator: David Stove. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnipaedista's explanation is sound. I retract the nomination. (Sorry if I was supposed to do this yesterday—thought it was resolved.) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (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).

LIGAS

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#LIGAS

HBBS

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#HBBS

The Dawn is Your Enemy

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 03:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a "sign-off bump" used by adult swim from 2005 to 2010, as learned from the "See also" section at Dawn (disambiguation) that was added in September and removed the next day. Nothing with this title appears at the target article of this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having no redirect here is worse than having a redirect to an article where it is not mentioned. (If it not being mentioned there is an issue, consider changing the article.) WP:RGUIDE applies. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly disagree with this. "Having no redirect here" IS better than having a redirect from an unimportant phrase used in the show, to an article where it holds no mention. The act of including this redirect implies that we have something to say about this, when we do not. "If not mentioned, change the article". No; there's no need to go out of our way to change the article to match every likely / unlikely redirect; it's the redirects that should have been matching with the current content of the article from the very beginning. Talking about quotes such as these at the target would not be worthwhile, as quotes from the show aren't important to be talking about. I have no interest in seeing this in the article, but if anyone adds reliable sources and wants to reintroduce this quote and redirect, feel free. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What quotes from the show? What show? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Counter C. A. Russell I would say that being not mentioned at the target is a clear reason to delete - it leaves users of the redirect confused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The absolutist stance on redirects without mention is wrong in both directions. Sometimes the combination of search term and article content means that a reader will absolutely find what they are looking for even if it isn't explicitly mentioned, other times they won't. It is our job to do what is best for readers in every individual case, not to do what is most compatible with an ideology. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2024 (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).

Nike Mercurial Vapor

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 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirect because Nike Mercurial already redirects to Nike, Inc.#Sports apparel. Anyone searching for Nike Mercurial Vapor will find Nike Mercurial. TarnishedPathtalk 13:44, 7 February 2024 (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).

Race Change To Another

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 08:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with this title was declined at WP:AFC/R back in September, at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2023-09#Redirect request: RCTA, Race Change To Another. It is a piece of slang originating from a Tiktok trend in 2022, and is not addressed at the target article. I don't think this is a helpful or useful redirect in its current state, as while comparisons have been drawn, the two terms do not seem interchangeable. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having this redirect for persons actually entering "Race Change To Another" is obviously better than not having it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2024 (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).

Redirects to deleted anchor at Borat Sagdiyev

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 08:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obscure Borat character; a Google search often brings up very few results, some of which are not related to Borat.

There are also around 20-ish spelling variations of this page that I would also nominate with this, but I am unsure if this can be done with Twinkle. Xeroctic (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects that target the same article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 7 February 2024 (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).

Torque Bow

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) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type of bow that is no longer(?) mentioned at the target article. It does make an appearance in Gears of War 2, but it's presence is minimal to the point I question whether this is needed as a redirect in the first place. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:58, 7 February 2024 (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).

UST Growling Tigers men's volleyball

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell these are two entirely different teams (one for National University, the other for University of Santo Tomas), but UST_Growling_Tigers#Volleyball points to the Spikers as well. So not sure what to recommend here, would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Rusalkii (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close this discussion. This was probably a bad case of copy-paste. The UST Golden Spikers volleyball has already been corrected; National University's men's volleyball team is at NU Bulldogs volleyball. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: But is it correct for UST Growling Tigers men's volleyball to target UST Golden Spikers volleyball? Or would you propose another target? I agree with the nominator here and don't understand why this redirect targets the Spikers volleyball article. CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target is correct no changes should be done. Apparently the volleyball teams are the "Golden Tigers/Tigresses". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 04:29, 7 February 2024 (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).

Sfio

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Sfio

Dikembe the Ambassador

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 08:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Dikembe" on the target page; perhaps there should be (apparently Reginald VelJohnson played a character by this name in one episode), but the situation is complicated by the fact that Dikembe Mutombo is, in fact, a Global Ambassador of the Special Olympics. BD2412 T 03:36, 7 February 2024 (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).

2024 US presidential campaign

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. ✗plicit 08:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reader typing in "2024 US presidential" looking for the article 2024 United States presidential election may get confused when they see 2024 US presidential campaign in the autofill instead of 2024 US presidential election. MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not seeing any reason to delete this? What confusion would this cause? Are you arguing that someone searching this is looking for something else as it seems you are arguing they are indeed looking for the current target. And this certainly seems to be a plausible way to search for it (note that currently this will show up in the search suggestions as redirects with RfD templates are counted as articles, I don't know how it would look once that is removed). A7V2 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't imagine someone putting in the vague descriptor "2024 US presidential campaign" in the Wikipedia search bar instead of "2024 US presidential election" unless they meant to look for information about a specific campaign, in which case they should specify which candidate's campaign they want to read about. Here's what the autofill list looked like for me:

      2024 US presidential
      2024 US presidential campaign
      2024 US presidential election in Indiana
      2024 US presidential election in Florida
      2024 US presidential election in Michigan
      2024 US presidential election in Pennsylvania
      2024 US presidential election in Arizona
      2024 US presidential election in Georgia
      2024 US presidential election in Texas
      2024 US presidential election in Nevada
      2024 US presidential election in Wisconsin

      I wouldn't have realized that "campaign" would redirect to the page I'm looking for until I clicked it out of curiosity and saw where it took me. However, the fact that the campaign redirect appears there instead of the existing election redirect (which won't appear at all unless I type e after presidential) is what made me call it into question. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. I'm not seeing how this redirect is harmful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even after reading all of what the nominator has written I'm still not understanding how this is in any way confusing. The target article covers the election campaign. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the word campaign by itself usually pertains to each candidate in the election, not to the very election itself. Up to each election, several campaigns take place. If I heard someone talk about "the election campaign", I would assume they're talking about a particular candidate's campaign. Even though candidates in elections are said to be "on the campaign trail", I don't think it would make so much sense for the very election itself to be merely called "the campaign". It would like calling a school science fair "the science project". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "The election campaign" is the collective term used (at least in British English) for all the individual campaigns. If someone is looking for a specific candidate or party's campaign then they'll most likely include that candidate and/or party's name in their search term. If they don't do that then they will not be WP:SURPRISED to arrive at an article that covers the campaign(s) for the election and links to the more specific articles. If we keep this, then those who do want the main election article will arrive at what they are looking for directly and other people will be at most 1-2 clicks/taps away from the article they want. If we disambiguate, everybody will be 1-2 clicks/taps away from the article they are looking for. If we delete it, people will be up to about three three taps away from search results (how many depends on multiple factors) that are not guaranteed to include the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2024 (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).

Alien Grunt

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 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has no real business being redirected even to a generic disambiguation page, as it is not a partial disambiguation for anything. It should be deleted as overly vague. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:10, 7 February 2024 (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).

HL2: EP4

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 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to a hypothetical "Episode 4" of Half-Life 2, which is a ridiculous concept given that there is not even an Episode 3, which was presumably intended to be the last one. Given that there was no "Episode 4" shown to ever have been in development, I believe this redirect should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 7 February 2024 (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/2024_February_7&oldid=1209721016"