Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29

December 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2021.

User talk:88.109.207.222

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#User talk:88.109.207.222

Neptune the blue ocean planet

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) 03:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neptune the blue ocean planet → Neptune  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as an implausible search term. I don't see that "The Blue Ocean Planet" is a common name for Neptune; it is not used in the article. If any planet were called "Blue Ocean Planet", it seems it would be Earth. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Confusing/unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only uses of this exact phrase I can find seem to originate with this redirect. "Blue ocean planet" itself does get uses, most relating to Earth. Various fictional planets also get a look in but Neptune doesn't. "Neptune the blue planet" is a very commonly used phrase, but it's not the one being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an article was created with gibberish in 2012 & 1 minute later someone simply redirected the article, when in hindsight it should have been speedied back then. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neptune has no ocean, and is filled with gases like hydrogen and helium instead. --2405:201:9002:E06A:4881:FB1C:8BE7:33D3 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2021 (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.

Second Avenue Subway (1970s)

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 speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused redirect as implausible term to search for or link to. If the section link is desired then that should be used, and if the name is desired than the main article at Second Avenue Subway, which in part covers the history and links to the fuller history article, should be used. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honestly I don't know why I created this. Since this has absolutely no links, I can only surmise that I created it with the intention of linking the original proposal in some context related to the Program for Action. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (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.

Country accent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Country accent

Consanguinamory

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 redirect to Wikt:consanguinamory. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by user now banned for socking. Non-noteworthy neologism not mentioned in article. ★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:consanguinamory. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect. This is the sort of thing that I would expect someone encountering the term to look up on Wikipedia, but we don't have any relevant content (I have no opinion whether we should) so a soft redirect is the most helpful we can be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf: while there's no relevant content on en-wiki, a soft redirect is at least better than nothing from a reader's perspective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (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.

Slovaks in Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului)

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. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slovaks in Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului) → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-sense. Giurtelecu Șimleului is in Romania, not in Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 12:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giurtelecu Șimleului was part of Hungary at multiple points in history. If the nomination was for a Hungary vs Romania discussion, the nomination can have more details. Also, there is a non-disambiguated redirect Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle in Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree that this does seem nonsensical to me. The only way I can make sense of these redirects is if it is asking about the Slovak population in Giurtelecu Șimleulu when it was in Hungary. This seems to be justified by other redirects at the target with other political entity (formerly) under control of this area: Slovaks in Transylvania Giurtelecu Șimleului, Slovaks in Transylvania (Giurtelecu Șimleului), Slovaks in Austria Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului), Slovaks in Austria Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului, Slovaks in Romania Giurtelecu Șimleului, and Slovaks in Romania (Giurtelecu Șimleului). (I won't bundle them in because the nominator is only concerned with Hungary, but I think a follow up discussion with these redirects should be launched once this is closed as delete.) However, a couple additional problems include the fact that the target does not give a historical breakdown of Slovaks in Giurtelecu Șimleului during each historical period and that the redirects are still formatted incorrectly, "Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului)" reads like a separate Hungarian political entity in control of Giurtelecu Șimleului, which obviously is not accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. An alternative interpretation of the disambiguation would be an article related to Slovaks in Hungary in the context of a group/organisation/media franchise/etc. called "Giurtelecu Șimleului", but a quick google doesn't provide evidence than anything like that exists let alone that it has any relevance ethnic groups in central/eastern Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2021 (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.

Untitled Jordan Peele film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Untitled Jordan Peele film

DefinitionofBibleTerms

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 Glossary of Christianity. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalisation + the article it leads to is not a Biblical dictionary but an article on which texts are in which bible.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a very old redirect dating from January 2001 when Wikipedia used CamelCase, so the capitalisation here is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Glossary of Christianity, as although the content that was originally at this title is now at the present target I think the glossary is a better match for what people will expect here. My second preference is keep, because given the age of the redirect it is almost certain there are incoming links so deletion should not be being considered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if WP:NOTDICTIONARY (literally, definitions would be dictionary material), a soft redirect to a Wiktionary category or appendix would be the solution (such as wikt:en:Category:en:Bible) or deletion. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 0 incoming mainspace links. 20 google hits. In my opinion, the lack of spaces between this redirect's words makes it quite implausible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely do not delete per {{R with old history}}. Glossary of Christianity seems like a plausible target, though. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Glossary of Christianity per Thrydulf and 1234qwer1234qwer4. I was notified of this discussion by talk page notification from Veverve because of my closure of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_26#GREEK_OLD_CALENDARISTS. Unlike that redirect, though, there is actual content hiding out in the history here that should be preserved, both for licensing reasons and sheer historical interest in an article that existed in the first year of this encyclopedia's existence. That should stop us from deleting it, but there's no policy I'm aware of that dictates preserving an inappropriate redirect target for historical or licensing reasons.--Aervanath (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Glossary of Christianity as a somewhat better target, but in any event don't delete: these old CamelCase redirects are interesting from a historical perspective, and indeed WP:RFD#KEEP #4 notes "Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links ... should be left alone". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2021 (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.

Religious authority

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Religious authority

Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy

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 speedy delete/move history, see below. Graham87 12:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy → Theocracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Eugene VioletTh2DcTheocracy → Theocracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects probably created by mistake. I cannot find what those redirects are supposed to be about. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm also baffled here the first redirect was created as a one-sentence stub about Theology (the article about which had already existed for a year). There is no notable person or thing called Eugene Violet, the closest is Eugène Viollet-le-Duc who was a 19th Century French architect with no obvious connection to theology. For "Þ2Dc" google finds only matches in various scientific/mathematical formula that seem to lack a commonality of subject but all of which are entirely unrelated to theology - I wonder if this part is mojibake? Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This paper [1] on Viollet-le-Duc's work mentions some discussion of theocracy, relating to Asian civilisation. Perhaps the creator had intended to use one of his works as a source for an article on theocracy? A7V2 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Eeeehhhhhhh, yeah, delete. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion to call expert witness. @Graham87: Is this some early MediaWiki artifact? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, I have no idea how that redirect ended up being created, and the January 2003 database dump doesn't provide any special insight. However, shortly after the redirect's creation, the text in it was merged into the real theocracy article, so we need to keep it for attribution purposes. Because this is such a blatantly obviously bad title, I've moved it's 2002 history to piggyback on the theocratic redirect and effectively deleted the "Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy" page. Graham87 12:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've also just deleted the other redirect that was nominated here. Graham87 12:30, 3 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.

Wikipedia:SLOP

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. The shortcut has been useful. Shortcuts are not required to be intuitive. The fault of using of a shortcut erroneously is with the user. There is a possible explanation for the O in SLOP. Jay (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't think these are good shortcut redirects. I think these are unintuitive - I don't think it's obvious from the name of the redirect where you will end up when you click them and I can't see how you get "slop" from the title of the essay or it's contents, where does the "O" come from? The slightly bigger issue (and hence the reason I'm bringing this here) is that the word "slop"/"Sloppy" has all sorts of negative connotations in the English language, implying that the proposed change is poorly thought out, low quality swill (which these proposals often aren't, they're just unnecessary or impractical). If someone is proposing a change in good faith then describing their proposal as "sloppy" is likely to be unnecessarily rude in my opinion, especially since, as noted by the essay, these proposals are often made by inexperienced newcomers (example diff [2]). As a rough guide these links have about 30 uses between them. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A 'solution looking for a problem' could certainly be characterized as slop (though one would generally pipe the link or write "per SLOP" as opposed to directing it at anyone in an unkind way). It is vaguely similar to the title and a convenient device to remember the essay. I personally find it useful and have it on a list I no longer generally maintain in my sandbox. Bar a convincing proposal that another page which greatly benefit from this shortcut, I am firmly in the camp of retention as-is. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The abbreviation is not even correct. The abbreviation should be SLfaP or SLP, not SLOP. Aasim (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The redirect in wide use, if inaccurate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Shortcut redirects are not required to be unintuitive (c.f. WP:RFFL, WP:ITNRD, WP:NCR, WP:A11Y, etc, etc) - if you don't recognise one you should just follow the link and read it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf In fact, it would be highly confusing if they were required to be unintuitive. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    you make a good point! I've now corrected my thinko! Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for breaking my sig! ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     00:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Aasim. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am in agreement with the nominator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Had the IP/OP not given an actually specific diff, then I would have said "Keep, this is nothing but a WP:SLOPpy nomination." In which case, they could have used this diff in their re-nomination. Rgrds.--Bison X (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any template can be misused to bite newcomers. That's a problem with the editor doing the biting not a reason to delete the template. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 35 uses between the two links. I disagree with the argument that the link is unintuitive, since it spells out Solution LOoking for a Problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, essentially per my argument at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 28 § Wikipedia:LUNATICS. It's not RfD's job to rid the encyclopedia of shortcuts that could be used in offensive ways, since that's many shortcuts. If an editor uses this shortcut as a personal attack, sanction them under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. (I'll note that the person in IP192's diff was a week later banned from projectspace—as IP192 knows, being the one who took them to ANI.) Deleting redirects like this won't even fix the problem, since one could always write This is [[Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem|SLOPpy]]. That leaves the questions of "Is it intuitive?" and "Is it used?" The "yes" on the latter trumps the "meh" on the former. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:24, 3 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:2020

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Draft:2020

Getting wet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Getting wet

Lawrence Cunningham (Shortland Street)

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 Robert Tripe. This is based on the lone vote, and may be boldly retargeted if a better target is found. Jay (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This character is not mentioned at the target or at List of Shortland Street characters or at List of original Shortland Street characters. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 29 December 2021 (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.

Yoke FM Hilongos

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) 22:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this in the target article JW 1961 Talk 09:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twotwofourtysix, which page? I don't see it anywhere. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: It was listed in this revision until someone removed it, apparently. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The station's Facebook is named 92.7 Hope Radio and it does have guest speakers from Hope Channel Philippines / SDA, but yes, it doesn't seem like it's a satellite or subsidiary. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The station is owned by a local ministry and is not affiliated with Hope Radio whatsoever. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:14, 29 December 2021 (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.

Court Justice

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 Court justice (without prejudice against a future RM to move Court Justice (TV series) to Court Justice). With thanks to IP65 for drafting the DAB. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no apparent reason why the broad phrase "Court Justice" would redirect to the list of justices of the United States's high court: there are many other courts with justices, including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, of Canada, of India, and of many others. Retargeting to Lists of supreme court justices (which is where Justices of the Supreme Court currently redirects to), to Judge (which is where Justices currently redirects to), or to Court Justice (TV series) (which is a precise title match) would be an improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Court Justice over this redirect and add a hatnote. The current target is far too narrow. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Court Justice is the redirect. Which page did you want to move over this? Jay (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems I was confused. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the list article is lacking state supreme court lists, so is considerably short of the lists [3] that exist on Wikipedia. And other non-supreme courts also have judges referred to as justices, so that list target would be inadequate even if it were more complete. [4] ;; judge is a viable target, as is the TV show. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget "Court Justice" to court justice (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for creating that dab page – I agree that's now the best possible target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Court justice as {{R from other capitalization}}. A WP:RM discussion could consider whether the tv show should be the primary topic for the capitalized form, but for now, with it having a parenthetical qualifier, let's send those entering the base term to a dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2021 (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/2021_December_29&oldid=1064947822"