Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2022.

Decimal chess[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. Jay (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be added at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal chesses are chess variants on 10 by 10 board. We should keep this redirect. Sharouser (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to a lack of mention. -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My delete !vote has been withdrawn. I'm not to a full "keep" though because the addition is unsourced. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep now mentioned in the article --Lenticel (talk) 07:48, 22 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 31#Paul (singer)

Celia McGuire[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 Penn & Teller Get Killed. Owing to lack of further discussion, or opposition to the retarget suggestion. Jay (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target, or has any strong relation to the target. The only subject in which the redirect seems to be referenced or referred is Penn & Teller Get Killed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes. Apparently she used a double name to disguise that she was playing two characters at once in the movie. See https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/614280 and http://andywest.org/cc/career/cinema.html -- apparently the end credits also mention it. A played by B, B played by C. Banaticus (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fact has been in the movie's article at times; see Special:Diff/41709226. I can't find a super-reliable source saying this, but anyone doubtful can rent the movie on Amazon for $2 to check if they want, I guess. So, assuming it's true, retarget to Penn & Teller Get Killed. If she only used the pseudonym in the context of that movie, makes more sense to redirect there. Adding an explanation to the movie's article is a different matter, since sourcing expectations are higher for content than for redirects, but if it's as straightforward in the credits as implied, those should be suitable for an WP:ABOUTSELF primary-source reference. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:15, 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) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 21:27, 21 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.

We'll Keep a Welcome (song)[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 We'll Keep a Welcome. Jay (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this page, which redirects to the song's composer, to be deleted because a page for the song itself, "We'll Keep a Welcome", now exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbledaisy (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the song as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget, if that's a thing that exists? Per Thryduulf. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the use in retargeting this page. There is no need for both "We'll Keep a Welcome" and "We'll Keep a Welcome (song)" to appear in the search bar. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If one targets the other, the search bar will only display one of them at a time until the text entered has no way of equaling the other with wildcards at the end of the entered text. In other words, "We'll Keep a Welcome (song)" would not appear until "We'll Keep a Welcome " (notice the space at the end) ... [or maybe "We'll Keep a Welcome (" with the "(" at the end] ... is entered. Also, there is precedence for targeting redirects in this manner; the category which {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} populates, Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, has over a quarter of a million 25,000 pages (meaning that's how many pages are marked as a "Redirect from unnecessary disambiguation".) Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed my number figure since I originally read the count in the category incorrectly. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Steel1943, that was very helpful. Could I retarget the page now or is there a further formal process? Humbledaisy (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Humbledaisy: If you are not familiar with closing discussions, I think just stating that you wish to withdraw the nomination and have the redirect target We'll Keep a Welcome (which agrees with the rest of the votes) should suffice. (I'd close the discussion myself, but with one of the tools I usually use to do so being down, I don't think I have time to do all the closing steps manually at this moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to withdraw the nomination and have the redirect target We'll Keep a Welcome. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:37, 21 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.

Pinterest Marketing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#Pinterest Marketing

Tradtitionalists[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 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. (May be hard to see: Tradtitionalists.) That, and the correct spelling, Traditionalists, exists and is a redirect towards the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Given that this was created as a duplicate article and then moved on the same day, I think that this was created in error but I'm not confident enough to speedy it myself. The history of the article now resides at the correctly spelled Traditionalists so there is no issue with attribution here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely misspelling at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:52, 23 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.

Annupurna Das[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 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, nothing revealing in an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete English sources seems to point to an engineer and to a Sanofi employee. Non-english sources might shed light on the matter but for now I can't find a justification as well. --Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 23 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.

Indult Catholic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Indult Catholic

Brothers and Sisters in Christ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Brothers and Sisters in Christ

Photosensitize[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Photosensitize

حفظ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#حفظ

Shoe factory[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 Shoemaking#Industrial era. Jay (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article mentions the redirect a few times, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate location in the article to target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 21 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.

Green tensor[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 Finite strain theory#The right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the current target or the former targets Strain tensor or Finite strain theory. There are tensors with Green's name attached to it, but those fail WP:PTM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 21 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.

List of most-subscribe youtube channels in Democratic Republic of Congo[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. Non-existing section target. Jay (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to a now non-existent section so it should be deleted. TartarTorte 02:18, 21 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.

Dark side of the Moon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Dark side of the Moon

List of Old Catholic churches[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Independent Catholic denominations does not list all Old Catholic denominations, only those which are considered to be Independent Catholic, which is defined in the article with sources as " 'micro-churches claiming apostolic succession and valid sacraments', in spite of not being affiliated to the historic Catholic churches such as the Roman Catholic and Utrechter Old Catholic churches." This means that denominations such as the Union of Utrecht, the Mariavite Church, or possibly the Union of Scranton, are Old Catholic without being Independent Catholic.
I recommend deleting to encourage creation, and because the subject named in the redirect is not related to the target. Veverve (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I have now seen List of Old Catholic Churches which should be deleted because the target is not made to be a list and is already long enough. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling List of Old Catholic Churches, which had not been tagged or formally nominated. There seems to be some consensus here that the other two redirects' target is unreasonable, but it would be good to hear thoughts about this third redirect's target (Old Catholic Church).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this "Old Catholic without being Independent Catholic" distinction found in RS? Srnec (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: yes, they are. You can have a look at the lede at Independent Catholicism which I quoted in my RfD nomination. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: it does not help much, as it is far from being a list of all Old Catholic denominations which have a WP article (which is what is expected most of the times for a list article). For example, the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America is not there, but the six organisations listed there have no WP article. Veverve (talk) 02:13, 21 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.

Christ Lord[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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are pure nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment they're not nonsense or implausible, they're translations of the first line of the poem, which can be read at the target. That having been said, given the many other contexts that this phrase could appear in English, the redirects should probably be deleted regardless. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Too vague to be useful. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget #s1&3 to Christ the King, as {{avoided double redirect}}s of Christ the Lord. Delete #2: Not a normal ordering for those words, and too many articles they could point to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Veverve (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget/Delete per Tamzin. I actually came to the exact same conclusion before seeing their vote, so I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this way! -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging the initial voters to see what they think about the retarget suggestions given by Tamzin for #1 and #3, and Thryduulf for #2: Rubbish computer, Rosguill, Mr. Guye, Tamzin, Veverve and Tavix. Jay (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I maintain my vote and arguments. Veverve (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay I think I'd stick with deletion, while Tamzin's suggestions are plausible, given that there are clearly other targets that they could be intended search terms for, I'm uncertain that redirection would help readers in this case. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced by Thryduulf's argument re #2, although it would certainly be preferable to the current target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tamzin 1&3 Happy editing--IAmChaos 04:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are many possible targets, but better to delete and rely on output of the search engine. Per WP:RFD#DELETE: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. --Heanor (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. --Thesmp (talk) 09:01, 15 February 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.

Template:NWHL Arenas[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @MikeVitale with the reason "Nothing links here anymore" FASTILY 00:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I did. At some point in the past, someone had created the "NWHL Arenas" template, which someone else then moved to redirect to the "National Women's Hockey League" template, and that then moved to become the "Premier Hockey Federation" template. Yesterday, I tracked down and edited all pages that transcluded the "NWHL Arenas" template and then CSD'ed the template as G6.
I'm not afraid to edit things, WP:BOLD, etc. But I'm still trying to learn what the best way is to get pages (Articles, Redirects, Categories, etc) that aren't used anymore deleted. -- MikeVitale 12:35, 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! 01:39, 21 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.

Local church[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 move disambiguation page to Local church and retarget Local churches there; retarget Local church body to Church (congregation). There was some opposition to a page move in favor of a formal RM. However, no one argues that an RM should reach a consensus other than to move the page. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and RfD has traditionally been allowed some leeways to act in place of RM on noncontroversial moves. Enforcing WP:MALPLACED is the pinnacle of a noncontroversial move, the sort of thing that someone would do unilaterally if I just closed as retarget. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are too broad for confidently target to a precise article. The expression "local church" has numerous meanings without a primary topic, and one cannot expect Wikipedia users to know all those meanings.
For example, the pages Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and Serbian Orthodox Church use this redirect to talk about the autocephalous E. Orthodox churches and not about the religious assemblies.
Headless Mule, Flex space and Ji Dou Church use it to refer to a church (building).
Magisterial Reformation uses it for Christianity and its clergy.
Covenant Evangelical Free Church uses it for Christian denomination.
I only gave a small sample of the diversity of the use of this expression on WP; outside of it, the expression is even more ambiguous. E.g.: "A location where Christians gather to pray and worship, or the community of believers there" ([2]), Church (building) (BBC), The Local Church (Britannica), "the diocese, with the bishop presiding at the Eucharist" or "national autocephalous churches" (OrthodoxWiki).
I recommend retargeting all to Local church (disambiguation). Veverve (talk) 01:06, 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! 01:38, 21 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.

Draft:The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples[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 the draft was abandoned several years ago, I see no reason to go through the extra bureaucracy of filing this as a WP:G13. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant redirect from an abandoned Draft article to a mainspace article, which doesn't have information regarding the supposed topic. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I do not see it being any useful and the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard procedure is to keep draft redirects in place when an AfC is accepted, although that's not what's happened here. Anarchyte (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to pre-redirect version and tag as abandoned draft - WP:G13. Jay (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 21 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_21&oldid=1072298302"