This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2023.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Get On The Dancefloor
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#The Important Steps of the American History
Delete per ... WP:RDAB, I guess ... due to lack of spacing between a disambiguator that is located within a disambiguator? The properly-spaced title, Contestants' Row (The Price Is Right (US)), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RDAB due to lack of space between article title and disambiguator. Its correctly-spaced title, Jupiter (Mythology), doesn't exist, but does it need to since Jupiter (mythology), the nominated redirect's target, exists? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:UFILM. Theatrically released on April 14, 2023, title with "(upcoming)" no longer necessary. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk)
18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested in hearing more about this, because this seems a likelier explanation than the current old-link one. I doubt there are significant links pointing to most upcoming films. Perhaps someone in the know can explain this further, and we might just arrive to a sane solution. By the way, backlinks should be checked every time irrespective of whether Deryck's argument holds up. Sometimes old links do exist. J947 † edits 03:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Delete all. My guess is that the thousands of hits we have been getting over the last month were a result of external search engines caching our redirects. From that perspective, it is actually harmful to keep these redirects after the films cease to be "upcoming" (have been released in all markets where a release is planned), so downstream data users don't continue to think that the films are still "upcoming". Deryck C. 14:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
__NOINDEX__
(edit: oops fixed) is on the redirect, and in due course it is presumably unindexed? This change effects nil difference on old links, and nil difference on cached results (I presume). Back in a few days...
J947 †
edits
06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)in most cases [how long these redirects remain useful for] is likely to be somewhere between about 3-4 weeks and a few months but outliers exist at both ends.it is not a prediction that this specific redirect will or will not cease to be useful on that date. Additionally it is impossible reliably judge how much use a redirect is getting while it is listed at RfD (which is why the statistics in nominations are for the 30 days prior to nomination not a rolling 30-day period). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Articles should not be about planned-to-exist-projects that do not exist at all, nor should redirect imply totally nonexistent planned-to-existe-projects are treated ton WPThis is almost entirely both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, we are discussing redirects so what articles should and should not exist is irrelevant here, what matters only is that the targets do exist. Secondly the target article is not about a "planned-to-exist-project[] that do[es] not exist" but about a (mostly) completed project that does exist; however some projects that don't exist (yet) but which are or were planned to are notable and there is (and should be) no restriction on redirects pointing to those.
... these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.(emphasis mine) It has created the assembly line of the upcoming film titling process with the mandatory last stop at RfD. If the word was "may" and not "should" we wouldn't be in this quandary. But the text at WP:UFILM had support of everyone including Thryduulf, so until we have a CSD for upcoming films, or a change of wordings at UFILM (such as waiting a month after the move), we'll continue to play out this game at RfD for EVERY film with upcoming in its title! Jay 💬 18:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, precedent becomes irrelevant..." Dangit, you focused on that part of my statement. I put it in parentheses since I was trying to not make it a focus point at all: I don't intend to nominate anything "early" at this point since I'm getting sick as hell of these discussions. "
Any tight threshold won't work." Well, that's the best thing we can do right now and nothing else is working, so unless we start somewhere or something, these annoying conversations are going to keep happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
please consider how starting this RfD made what was effectively a maintenance template show up on external search results for rudhran– I think it's safe to assume this only happened for this film because it's an Indian film that's largely unknown to the Western world, with a very limited number of major sites for search engines to index.
how precedent to keep nominating these redirects at RfD nearly straight away seems like it would be harmful to the reader– There is no precedent to nominate them "nearly straight away", in the past, redirects were typically nominated in large batches, without regard for how much time has elapsed since a film has been released (or received a title), but usually it's already been a month or two. I agree nominating these redirects too early may be harmful to readers, but nominating these redirects in general isn't harmful at all.
Agree, it is a waste of RfD time– I wholeheartedly agree. I wish there were enough support for a new speedy deletion criterion last time, but it just wasn't there.
what do you think of the change of wordings I suggested above– Do you mean changing "should" to "may"? I'm not sure about that, the intention of UFILM was to document the current consensus that these redirects shouldn't exist, i.e. they should be deleted. Deletion can either come in two ways, either through speedy deletion or XfD, but there was not enough support for a new CSD criterion. This is why UFILM says to nominate them to RfD, saying "may" implies that one may choose not to nominate such a redirect. I cannot come up with a scenario where this should happen.
at least 30 days after a film has been released or received an official titleto the UFILM text. Since there was already rough consensus for the length of a hypothetical grace period in the previous discussion, I think we can safely add that to UFILM without starting a new discusison. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film)...are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Arbitration clauses and class action waivers
No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target, some mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Not currently mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target, but mentioned in a few other articles. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target. Mentioned in a few other articles, but note also Evermeet: Island of Elves. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target. Has a few mentions in multiple other articles though. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Friendly Arm Inn
No longer described at target. Passing mention exists at Giant_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Giant-kin. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target. Search brings up a lot of, partly passing, mentions in various articles though, so probably an option to retarget it. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target; redirecting to Catti-brie#Taulmaril the Heartseeker (possibly also creating Taulmaril the Heartseeker) seems appropriate but I'm entirely unfamiliar with this universe. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target. Some passing mentions in other article; not also Icingdeath and Twinkle. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Retarget/Disambiguate. This is a really odd redirect, which is probably a result of us not (prior to ~a couple months ago) having a generalised article on geothermal activity. There are a couple of articles that are much better suited as redirect targets. For example Geothermal energy, Geothermal power, and geothermal activity. I noticed this because I was retargeting/adding links to the new geothermal activity article where appropriate, and realised that the majority of links that should now lead to the latter were currently targeted at the redirect, which brings you to the geothermal gradient article. This article is only tangentially related to the topic and about something that is much more technical than what the average user is looking at, so all in all not really a logical redirect. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Links to Germany at the 2022 European Championships. Doesn't seem useful to redirect an athlete who has had success at multiple, world-class events to an article about one edition of a single event. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please delete the unused redirect. -- evrik ( talk) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Disannexation
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1#Rachel Sweeney
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1#Adam Nicolle
Was left after an undiscussed page move. No likely typo. In German, it is ridiculously ungrammatical (The correct singular would be "Schwarzer Deutscher", the correct plural "Schwarze Deutsche"). Rsk6400 ( talk) 04:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Fuerzas represivas" in Spanish is a generic (leftist-POV) term for police or other state security forces and does not specifically refer to this group's activities (which, somewhat confusingly, are primarily in opposition to "fuerzas represivas" ). Deletion seems most appropriate as there isn't a good WP:RLOTE-compliant target to my mind. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2023.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Get On The Dancefloor
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#The Important Steps of the American History
Delete per ... WP:RDAB, I guess ... due to lack of spacing between a disambiguator that is located within a disambiguator? The properly-spaced title, Contestants' Row (The Price Is Right (US)), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RDAB due to lack of space between article title and disambiguator. Its correctly-spaced title, Jupiter (Mythology), doesn't exist, but does it need to since Jupiter (mythology), the nominated redirect's target, exists? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:UFILM. Theatrically released on April 14, 2023, title with "(upcoming)" no longer necessary. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk)
18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested in hearing more about this, because this seems a likelier explanation than the current old-link one. I doubt there are significant links pointing to most upcoming films. Perhaps someone in the know can explain this further, and we might just arrive to a sane solution. By the way, backlinks should be checked every time irrespective of whether Deryck's argument holds up. Sometimes old links do exist. J947 † edits 03:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Delete all. My guess is that the thousands of hits we have been getting over the last month were a result of external search engines caching our redirects. From that perspective, it is actually harmful to keep these redirects after the films cease to be "upcoming" (have been released in all markets where a release is planned), so downstream data users don't continue to think that the films are still "upcoming". Deryck C. 14:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
__NOINDEX__
(edit: oops fixed) is on the redirect, and in due course it is presumably unindexed? This change effects nil difference on old links, and nil difference on cached results (I presume). Back in a few days...
J947 †
edits
06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)in most cases [how long these redirects remain useful for] is likely to be somewhere between about 3-4 weeks and a few months but outliers exist at both ends.it is not a prediction that this specific redirect will or will not cease to be useful on that date. Additionally it is impossible reliably judge how much use a redirect is getting while it is listed at RfD (which is why the statistics in nominations are for the 30 days prior to nomination not a rolling 30-day period). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Articles should not be about planned-to-exist-projects that do not exist at all, nor should redirect imply totally nonexistent planned-to-existe-projects are treated ton WPThis is almost entirely both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, we are discussing redirects so what articles should and should not exist is irrelevant here, what matters only is that the targets do exist. Secondly the target article is not about a "planned-to-exist-project[] that do[es] not exist" but about a (mostly) completed project that does exist; however some projects that don't exist (yet) but which are or were planned to are notable and there is (and should be) no restriction on redirects pointing to those.
... these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.(emphasis mine) It has created the assembly line of the upcoming film titling process with the mandatory last stop at RfD. If the word was "may" and not "should" we wouldn't be in this quandary. But the text at WP:UFILM had support of everyone including Thryduulf, so until we have a CSD for upcoming films, or a change of wordings at UFILM (such as waiting a month after the move), we'll continue to play out this game at RfD for EVERY film with upcoming in its title! Jay 💬 18:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, precedent becomes irrelevant..." Dangit, you focused on that part of my statement. I put it in parentheses since I was trying to not make it a focus point at all: I don't intend to nominate anything "early" at this point since I'm getting sick as hell of these discussions. "
Any tight threshold won't work." Well, that's the best thing we can do right now and nothing else is working, so unless we start somewhere or something, these annoying conversations are going to keep happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
please consider how starting this RfD made what was effectively a maintenance template show up on external search results for rudhran– I think it's safe to assume this only happened for this film because it's an Indian film that's largely unknown to the Western world, with a very limited number of major sites for search engines to index.
how precedent to keep nominating these redirects at RfD nearly straight away seems like it would be harmful to the reader– There is no precedent to nominate them "nearly straight away", in the past, redirects were typically nominated in large batches, without regard for how much time has elapsed since a film has been released (or received a title), but usually it's already been a month or two. I agree nominating these redirects too early may be harmful to readers, but nominating these redirects in general isn't harmful at all.
Agree, it is a waste of RfD time– I wholeheartedly agree. I wish there were enough support for a new speedy deletion criterion last time, but it just wasn't there.
what do you think of the change of wordings I suggested above– Do you mean changing "should" to "may"? I'm not sure about that, the intention of UFILM was to document the current consensus that these redirects shouldn't exist, i.e. they should be deleted. Deletion can either come in two ways, either through speedy deletion or XfD, but there was not enough support for a new CSD criterion. This is why UFILM says to nominate them to RfD, saying "may" implies that one may choose not to nominate such a redirect. I cannot come up with a scenario where this should happen.
at least 30 days after a film has been released or received an official titleto the UFILM text. Since there was already rough consensus for the length of a hypothetical grace period in the previous discussion, I think we can safely add that to UFILM without starting a new discusison. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film)...are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Arbitration clauses and class action waivers
No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target, some mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Not currently mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target, but mentioned in a few other articles. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target. Mentioned in a few other articles, but note also Evermeet: Island of Elves. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer described at target. Has a few mentions in multiple other articles though. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Friendly Arm Inn
No longer described at target. Passing mention exists at Giant_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Giant-kin. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target. Search brings up a lot of, partly passing, mentions in various articles though, so probably an option to retarget it. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target; redirecting to Catti-brie#Taulmaril the Heartseeker (possibly also creating Taulmaril the Heartseeker) seems appropriate but I'm entirely unfamiliar with this universe. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned at target. Some passing mentions in other article; not also Icingdeath and Twinkle. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No longer mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Retarget/Disambiguate. This is a really odd redirect, which is probably a result of us not (prior to ~a couple months ago) having a generalised article on geothermal activity. There are a couple of articles that are much better suited as redirect targets. For example Geothermal energy, Geothermal power, and geothermal activity. I noticed this because I was retargeting/adding links to the new geothermal activity article where appropriate, and realised that the majority of links that should now lead to the latter were currently targeted at the redirect, which brings you to the geothermal gradient article. This article is only tangentially related to the topic and about something that is much more technical than what the average user is looking at, so all in all not really a logical redirect. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Links to Germany at the 2022 European Championships. Doesn't seem useful to redirect an athlete who has had success at multiple, world-class events to an article about one edition of a single event. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please delete the unused redirect. -- evrik ( talk) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2#Disannexation
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1#Rachel Sweeney
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1#Adam Nicolle
Was left after an undiscussed page move. No likely typo. In German, it is ridiculously ungrammatical (The correct singular would be "Schwarzer Deutscher", the correct plural "Schwarze Deutsche"). Rsk6400 ( talk) 04:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Fuerzas represivas" in Spanish is a generic (leftist-POV) term for police or other state security forces and does not specifically refer to this group's activities (which, somewhat confusingly, are primarily in opposition to "fuerzas represivas" ). Deletion seems most appropriate as there isn't a good WP:RLOTE-compliant target to my mind. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)