This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2023.
Should've redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors if not notable enough for own article or shades of color section. 2607:FB91:C94:C2EC:7CC8:6A2:19E4:32A6 ( talk) 18:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
If the main article about the color bittersweet will rather be on Vermilion than Shades of red, retarget to Vermilion#Bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 ( talk) 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk page of the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Please decide the best primary page for bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't keep, because there's nothing to keep. Can't delete, because nobody other than the nominator (sorry, nobody has) has !voted for delete. Can somebody either put something at one of the suggested targets or provide another opinion on what to do with this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
casualdejekyll 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These terms are not mentioned in either of the target articles. These redirects were discussed as a group in 2021, but no resolution was found. As it stands, the target articles contain no context about these terms, and in general, it is unclear on where exactly they should target, if anywhere. (For example, these redirects seem related to Sick, but that's probably an improper association as well.) For these reasons, I think these redirects should be deleted, but at the bare minimum I believe the redirects should all target the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
habitual pattern" of "
unplanned absences". Most mentions of sickness/health in that article are not in relation to falsely claimed illness, but rather in relation to medical explanations for absenteeism (that is, actual illnesses as a cause of a habitual pattern of unplanned absences). "Pulling a sickie" isn't generally a habitual activity, but rather a spontaneous thing (eg. dodging work for a day to go to an event, to sleep in, or to sleep off a hangover). Sick leave defines its topic as "paid time off", but I'm not sure that "pulling a sickie" necessarily implies claiming sick pay; it just means claiming illness as an excuse to not get fired for absence. (In-fact, students dodging school rather than work are also said to be "pulling a sickie"; getting the sick pay isn't the point.) That said, I'm sure many people do falsely claim sick pay, so maybe it's the best target. "Sickie" is close enough to "sick leave" to not be immediately surprising to readers, but the problem is Sick leave doesn't actually mention falsely claiming sick leave, with the article currently only covering legitimately claiming it. There is a single passing mention of absenteeism, but it's in the context of noting that "presenteeism" (going to work when you are in-fact actually sick) is a bigger economic problem. I'm leaning soft redirect to Wiktionary, until relevant content is added somewhere. (That also seemed to be the direction the last RfD was heading, although it ultimately didn't reach consensus.) – Scyrme ( talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last ditch effort to get more comments, instead of closing as no consensus and just kicking the issue down the road another two years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
casualdejekyll 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned in redirect target, either now or around the time the redirect was created, and a Google search doesn't give me any idea what this could possibly be referring to. I feel like this redirect creation could have been an accident per the relevant contribs of the user who created it. I came across this situation after reading this news story that mentioned Michael Parkinson's interview with Meg Ryan. Graham 87 17:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yousong was a disambiguation page which I just turned into a redirect to Jiandi. But there was no actual disambiguation of "Jiandi" at the Yousong page anyway. Fram ( talk) 10:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. Could also realistically be searched by someone looking for Night Train Lane. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
“The Lane Train” has become common verbiage for the entire Lane Kiffin experience. It probably warrants being included in the article somehow (I'll see if I can work it in), but it's certainly in use. I also don't think there's going to be confusion with Night Train Lane, and a hatnote could handle that. Whether this is useful enough as a search term is the question, but in the absence of a solid reason to delete, I lean keep for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Kiffin's teams are often referred to by the moniker "Lane Train", because it goes by season and there's no good place to put it. I'd probably put it at the end of the 2017 FAU season, because that was the year it picked up steam if I recall correctly, but that still feels a bit weird. There is definitely the material to include it, it's just about whether it can be fit in well.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
J947 †
edits 10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#Contemporary music
Page was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged, and there is no relevant content at the redirect target. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target; other shorts named "Boxing" also exist, including one from earlier this year, so I imagine redirecting to the producing company of a 140-year-old film that doesn't mention said film would be a bit ASTONISHing to our readers. (Note: if kept, this should be linked to wikidata:Q16039787.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense that way – in particular, as it suggests a spurious synonymity: a "church officer" can be any ecclesiastical office-holder, whereas ordinary denotes only a specific type of official. Hildeoc ( talk) 19:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for the late additions which were also not tagged (I will add shortly)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
A7V2 (
talk) 06:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Created with typo. Please delete. Panamitsu ( talk) 05:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The person named in this redirect is only tangentially related to the target page. Redirecting her name to the mostly-unrelated project is more confusing than helpful. Snorlax Monster 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article, but the article does not discuss Bettencourt or her work in any detail (nor should it, as she is not related to the topic of the page).
5. Someone finds them useful, which is what you seem to be personally arguing; however, I think the existence of such a redirect is more likely to mislead readers than it would be helpful to them.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.unequivocally applies. (I'm skeptical that there is enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability, but if anyone would like to attempt to write such an article, I would have no issue with that.)
there are quite many incoming links indicating that we should sooner or later have a stand-alone article about the personThe existing links to those redirects are exclusively in citations in which she is credited as an author (or otherwise in tables of various authors credited in documents), not actually discussing Bettencourt. But even if those links did provide that context, they could do so just as well as WP:REDLINKs, which would also be far more likely to encourage the creation of a page (if, as you stated, that is an important purpose of them). -- Snorlax Monster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
5. The redirect makes no senseand
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.-- Snorlax Monster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: SnorlaxMonster ( talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the nom's double-!vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 02:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as written and intended
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as Intended
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Rules as Written
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2023.
Should've redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors if not notable enough for own article or shades of color section. 2607:FB91:C94:C2EC:7CC8:6A2:19E4:32A6 ( talk) 18:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
If the main article about the color bittersweet will rather be on Vermilion than Shades of red, retarget to Vermilion#Bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 ( talk) 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk page of the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Please decide the best primary page for bittersweet. 134.199.113.124 ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't keep, because there's nothing to keep. Can't delete, because nobody other than the nominator (sorry, nobody has) has !voted for delete. Can somebody either put something at one of the suggested targets or provide another opinion on what to do with this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
casualdejekyll 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These terms are not mentioned in either of the target articles. These redirects were discussed as a group in 2021, but no resolution was found. As it stands, the target articles contain no context about these terms, and in general, it is unclear on where exactly they should target, if anywhere. (For example, these redirects seem related to Sick, but that's probably an improper association as well.) For these reasons, I think these redirects should be deleted, but at the bare minimum I believe the redirects should all target the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
habitual pattern" of "
unplanned absences". Most mentions of sickness/health in that article are not in relation to falsely claimed illness, but rather in relation to medical explanations for absenteeism (that is, actual illnesses as a cause of a habitual pattern of unplanned absences). "Pulling a sickie" isn't generally a habitual activity, but rather a spontaneous thing (eg. dodging work for a day to go to an event, to sleep in, or to sleep off a hangover). Sick leave defines its topic as "paid time off", but I'm not sure that "pulling a sickie" necessarily implies claiming sick pay; it just means claiming illness as an excuse to not get fired for absence. (In-fact, students dodging school rather than work are also said to be "pulling a sickie"; getting the sick pay isn't the point.) That said, I'm sure many people do falsely claim sick pay, so maybe it's the best target. "Sickie" is close enough to "sick leave" to not be immediately surprising to readers, but the problem is Sick leave doesn't actually mention falsely claiming sick leave, with the article currently only covering legitimately claiming it. There is a single passing mention of absenteeism, but it's in the context of noting that "presenteeism" (going to work when you are in-fact actually sick) is a bigger economic problem. I'm leaning soft redirect to Wiktionary, until relevant content is added somewhere. (That also seemed to be the direction the last RfD was heading, although it ultimately didn't reach consensus.) – Scyrme ( talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last ditch effort to get more comments, instead of closing as no consensus and just kicking the issue down the road another two years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
casualdejekyll 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned in redirect target, either now or around the time the redirect was created, and a Google search doesn't give me any idea what this could possibly be referring to. I feel like this redirect creation could have been an accident per the relevant contribs of the user who created it. I came across this situation after reading this news story that mentioned Michael Parkinson's interview with Meg Ryan. Graham 87 17:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yousong was a disambiguation page which I just turned into a redirect to Jiandi. But there was no actual disambiguation of "Jiandi" at the Yousong page anyway. Fram ( talk) 10:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target. Could also realistically be searched by someone looking for Night Train Lane. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
“The Lane Train” has become common verbiage for the entire Lane Kiffin experience. It probably warrants being included in the article somehow (I'll see if I can work it in), but it's certainly in use. I also don't think there's going to be confusion with Night Train Lane, and a hatnote could handle that. Whether this is useful enough as a search term is the question, but in the absence of a solid reason to delete, I lean keep for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Kiffin's teams are often referred to by the moniker "Lane Train", because it goes by season and there's no good place to put it. I'd probably put it at the end of the 2017 FAU season, because that was the year it picked up steam if I recall correctly, but that still feels a bit weird. There is definitely the material to include it, it's just about whether it can be fit in well.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
J947 †
edits 10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#Contemporary music
Page was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged, and there is no relevant content at the redirect target. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target; other shorts named "Boxing" also exist, including one from earlier this year, so I imagine redirecting to the producing company of a 140-year-old film that doesn't mention said film would be a bit ASTONISHing to our readers. (Note: if kept, this should be linked to wikidata:Q16039787.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense that way – in particular, as it suggests a spurious synonymity: a "church officer" can be any ecclesiastical office-holder, whereas ordinary denotes only a specific type of official. Hildeoc ( talk) 19:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for the late additions which were also not tagged (I will add shortly)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
A7V2 (
talk) 06:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Created with typo. Please delete. Panamitsu ( talk) 05:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The person named in this redirect is only tangentially related to the target page. Redirecting her name to the mostly-unrelated project is more confusing than helpful. Snorlax Monster 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article, but the article does not discuss Bettencourt or her work in any detail (nor should it, as she is not related to the topic of the page).
5. Someone finds them useful, which is what you seem to be personally arguing; however, I think the existence of such a redirect is more likely to mislead readers than it would be helpful to them.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.unequivocally applies. (I'm skeptical that there is enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability, but if anyone would like to attempt to write such an article, I would have no issue with that.)
there are quite many incoming links indicating that we should sooner or later have a stand-alone article about the personThe existing links to those redirects are exclusively in citations in which she is credited as an author (or otherwise in tables of various authors credited in documents), not actually discussing Bettencourt. But even if those links did provide that context, they could do so just as well as WP:REDLINKs, which would also be far more likely to encourage the creation of a page (if, as you stated, that is an important purpose of them). -- Snorlax Monster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
5. The redirect makes no senseand
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.-- Snorlax Monster 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: SnorlaxMonster ( talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the nom's double-!vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 02:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as written and intended
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Rules as Intended
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Rules as Written