This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2023.
- 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
23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Missiles are not the only things that can be wire-guided. Other wire-guided projectiles include torpedoes and submersibles. The French Wikipedia has
a broad article on wire guidance, and so could we, so we should delete these all per
WP:REDYES. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
21:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for now per
WP:WTAF - These redirects are useful as-is, and nothing would be served by deleting them now. There are other methods to get an broad overview article created if the OP isn't able to do it themselves (which they aren't required to do, nor should they be). Writing it from scratch is beyond my area of expertise, and I have no knowledge of French, and I don't write machine-translated articles. There are French speakers on Wikipedia, and one of them might be interested in doing a translation. Also, an editor at
WP:MIL might also be in doing a scratch article, as the major applications are military.
BilCat (
talk)
21:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- WTAF is about inclusion of links in certain kinds of article. There is a longstanding tradition that if a redirect is about a notable topic and the target article does not expound on that topic (as with many cases of a broad topic redirecting to a subtopic), we should delete to encourage article creation (or at a minimum the addition of a section somewhere). This has happened even with some very high-profile titles, e.g.
Anti-white racism (
RfD). --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Tamzin. The current situation is analogous to redirecting
laser guidance to
laser guided bomb. Broad redirects only make sense if we have a sufficiently encompassing target to which to point them, otherwise they can lead to astonishment.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
22:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
A7V2 (
talk)
01:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. (Side note: With the way the redirects are structured, I'm surprised they are not
WP:X1s. I remember those days...)
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
- 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 soft delete. Based on
minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired
PROD (a.k.a.
"soft deletion"). Editors can
request the article's undeletion.
✗
plicit
23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Currently targeted to an actress that appears in the television program; could equally target
Nida Mumtaz and
Munazzah Arif. All three targets would be misleading, as none contain sufficient information about the program. Unless this can be expanded into an article- and based on my cursory searches, I don't think it can- I would suggest this be deleted as misleading.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk
20:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Old Earth (Dune)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Mars (Doctor Who)
2023–24 1. FC Heidenheim season
- 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
00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Red link to encourage page creation. The redirect was created back in March, way too prematurely.
Dl.thinker (
talk)
17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
- 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. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
16:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Per the section this redirect targets, this subject of this redirect actually refers to
Linguistic anthropology#First paradigm: anthropological linguistics ... if anything. However, this article in general doesn't discuss this subject in sufficient detail, but it doesn't seem as though
Phoneme does either, so I'm defaulting to delete here.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I don't understand what you mean and I'm the creator so perhaps that is the problem. I'm surprised to learn
- Go to place
- Record linguistics data
- isn't common. Anthropologists only do after field cataloging & comparison?
Invasive Spices (
talk)
18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- We must be talking at cross purposes. I don't understand your question. More importantly, I don't understand what "measuring phonemes" could mean in any literal sense. While speech sounds are recorded, a
phoneme is "generally regarded as an abstraction of a set of speech sounds that are perceived as equivalent" and is therefore not in any place, available to record.
Cnilep (
talk)
06:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Tulsi Gabbard's position on the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes
- 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. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
There are several politicians mentioned in the target section, making it a bit cumbersome for readers who may search this term expecting to clearly know where this subject is located, only to have to still skim for a minute or two to find .. the one sentence in the sea of sentences and politician mentioned in this section. So, probably delete this redirect as somewhat unhelpful and, though I'm not sure how notable this subject may be,
WP:REDLINK.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
- 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 unrefine. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
FCC does more than just content regulation; it also regulates aspects of technology regarding radio wave frequencies other entires can use and/or have access to. To pigeonhole readers into this section is misleading, but I'm not sure if this redirect should be deleted or if it should be weak retargeted to
Federal Communications Commission (without the section redirect). (Note: A similar title,
FCC regulations, does not exist.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Conservation status of Bombyx mori
- 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. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Yep, it's in the infobox, and that's it. Readers looking for more information about this subject at the target article will be sadly disappointed.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Organizations that do assessments of conservation statuses don't assess domesticated species. There is never going to be any content discussing the conservation status of domesticated silk moths, and it's arguably WP:OR to even have DOM as a status in the infobox (although I suppose DOM status is somewhat useful to flag organisms that will never have an assessed status, as opposed to the thousands of organisms that don't yet have an assessed status but could have a status one day).
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As pointed out, it's domesticated, it never will have any conservation status.
Dyanega (
talk)
17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As noted, a redirect implies a reasonably informative destination, not a single word. And for a domesticated species, this is like
Conservation status of poodles.
Largoplazo (
talk)
18:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as this redirect suggests we should open up
WP:PANDORA such that every article about an organism should have "Conservation status of [genus] [species]" redirects, even if the conservation status is not noteworthy (as is typically the case for a domesticated animal) and/or not discussed.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
23:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as it is not discussed at the target. I don't have any issue with similar redirects where the conservation status is of some importance (ie if there is a section discussing conservation/etc).
A7V2 (
talk)
01:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Plantdrew --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
- 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. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Found this tagged for
speedy deletion as "attack page", but I don't think it qualifies. I don't know if it is meant to be about a hate group made of Mexicans or a group of people hating Mexicans; in any case, it seems to have little connection to the target, but is old enough that RFD is the best option. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: I thought this redirect met
WP:G10 because of the obvious negative connotations of "hate group" and the fact that most groups mentioned in the article cannot be considered as such. But regardless, the target is misleading, because a reader entering "Mexican hate group" is most likely searching for hate groups operating in Mexico than a list of Chicano organizations, so it's kind of a
WP:SURPRISE situation.
- Only one group in the list can be reasonably labelled a "hate group", and it doesn't have an article. I also can't find any suitable target.
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk)
17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
- 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
07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
This page used to be an article about Drovers Run at the time it was created, after which it was redirected to the current target by
Daniel99091. I'm not sure we should still have this lying around either, since it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays since the move compared to the target and the correctly spelled
Drovers (fictional farm). Regards,
SONIC
678
01:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Histmerge.
Sonic678, if you look at the page histories you'll see that what happened was that Daniel99091 made a cut & paste move, which broke the attribution of the content's creation. The original page must not be deleted, and the issue needs to be fixed by a
WP:history merge. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Support merging history as nom to fix this matter. @
Paul 012: Thanks for pointing it out-I didn't really consider that option when I nominated the redirect. Regards,
SONIC
678
17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Histmerge is now
Done, the relevant revisions prior to the cut-and-paste move have been merged into the history of
Drovers Run.
DanCherek (
talk)
23:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. I have no opinion regarding the remaining redirect. It is now effectively an r from move, which generally should be retained, but it's old and miscapitalised, so there's really no harm in deleting, now that the discussion is open. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep as a historical redirect that is cheap and doesn't do much harm. I don't know if there are any incoming external links out there, but this would break them. (I'm also not convinced the target is notable, but that's a separate discussion.)
Skarmory
(talk •
contribs)
12:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply)
04:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Gun politics in Indonesia
- 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 no consensus.
✗
plicit
07:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
"Gun politics" is a US-centric term. The target sections only cover gun control laws, and makes no mention of gun ownership being a political issue in Indonesia or Israel. Delete as misleading/unhelpful redirects.
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC), 08:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: There are loads of Gun politics in Foo redirects that point various ways. They should also be examined, but I'm not doing that right now. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Not seeing a good reason to delete. Nominator asserts that
"Gun politics" is a US-centric term
. That sounds more like an ENGVAR issue than anything else, so
K3 would likely apply here. -
Presidentman
talk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
17:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete not a
WP:ENGVAR issue. The word "politics" means the same thing in all Anglophone countries, and the target sections don't discuss politics at all (e.g. public debates, proposals by legislators for changes to existing laws, etc.).
59.149.117.119 (
talk)
21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Are laws not political? See, e.g.
Category:Gun politics, which appears to be the overarching category here.
Presidentman
talk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
18:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The country subcats under that category are being
proposed for deletion/merging, as the term does not reflect their contents. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- To me, "politics of" connotes not laws as they are but to ongoing discourse and debate on laws and policies, and to activities (rallies, riots, boycotts, bombings, etc.) related thereto and their impact. For instance, every country has a law as to what side of the road people are allowed to drive on. Nevertheless, "politics of the side of the road to drive on" is pretty much an empty topic except with respect to the rare occasions when a consideration arises of switching from one side to the other. "Politics of the driving side of the road in the United States" is a non-topic.
Largoplazo (
talk)
19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Middling-weak keep. At least in democracies, which both of these countries are, laws are an extension of politics. As such, these are not misleading targets, while the search terms are plausible. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
17:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply)
04:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Yunfei (Samurai Shodown)
- 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. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
03:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
Unexplained redirect. Who calls this Oceangate?
Schierbecker (
talk)
00:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – It's not even a real redirect, it doesn't work. "Oceangate" is never mentioned at the target page.
GA-RT-22 (
talk)
01:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – A quick Google search turns up nothing for Oceangate Tower aside from an unremarkable office building in Long Beach, CA.
BusterTheMighty (
talk)
05:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment to @
Schierbecker: - Supposedly, this was a name used by the developers. Going back to the time the redirect was created, there was a line in the article about the use of Oceangate. "
'Ferrara Tower' appears to be a working title for the building, other working names in use include 'Meridian Tower' and 'Oceangate Tower'." When it was removed in December 2009, the line had read: "
Working names in use for the structure included 'Ferrara Tower', 'Meridian Tower' and 'Oceangate Tower'." Both
Ferrara Tower and
Meridian Tower are redirects to this article. While references regarding Oceangate and Ferrara are hard to find, if not impossible, there are quite a few regarding Meridian:
Wales Online,
ITV, BBC (uppercase 'Tower')
BBC (lowercase 'tower'),
1,
2. I hope that clears things up. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Particularly, from article history, there is a reference to
a skyscrapernews.com entry on a different skyscraper, which mentions a "Swansea's 'Oceangate' tower (107m)" which is "expected to see construction in 2006/2007". This matches up with the Meridian Quay's height and construction start period, but I don't know whether that's enough to narrow down whether this is the same building.
Randi🦋
Talk
Contribs
17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, I missed that in the article history. I would say that it is likely the same building, but that there is enough wiggle room that it is fully confirmed. {{
R from former name}} and/or {{
R from alternate names}} could apply if there was concrete proof. For now, it might be best that this ends up deleted with a possible chance that the future does give a proper reference that could be used to restore this. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, I can't find anything referring to Oceangate as a name for the building (though there are several national news articles which referred to it as Ferrara Tower) so it seems to be a name that never took hold.
Sionk (
talk)
11:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, Even if it was a name originally used either by the developers, commercially, or both, as @
Super Goku V and @
Randi Mothhave said, it obviously didn’t pan out that way. As no one in recent history has used the term “OceanGate” to refer to this specific tower, this redirect should be deleted.
Wikentromere (
talk)
21:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as obscure synonym at best --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: the two building names are likely not related and even if they there there is not enough merit for this redirect to be kept.
InterstellarGamer12321 (
talk |
contribs)
18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).