Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30

May 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2021.

RAF

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a 6-year old discussion on Talk:Royal Air Force (Archive 2) on whether to keep the redirect or point it to RAF (disambiguation), in light of the German terrorist organization with the same acronym.

Pageviews suggest there is no primary topic, with Royal Air Force consistently having ~2x the pageviews of Red Army Faction; hence...this point-to-new-target discussion? LenaAvrelia (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Whether Royal Air Force is still the primary topic or not is a question for a requested move discussion, as the question would be whether or not to move RAF (disambiguation) to RAF. I could see there being no primary topic, but I don't see changing the primary topic to Red Army Faction. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Page views aren't the only factor, and the Royal Air Force certainly has historical significance. BilCat (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When someone hears "RAF", they're most likely to think of the Royal Air Force. It certainly has been that way for over 100 years. Dominicmgm (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly RAF has been the common and widely used term for the Royal Air Force for over 100 years so really outweighs other uses. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the British military wing with a 100-year history and involvement in several major world conflicts is absolutely the primary topic over a minor German extremist group that dissolved almost as long ago now as the entire time it existed. Note that Raf points to RAF (disambiguation), I suggest it should be retargeted to Royal Air Force as well. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Royal Air Force will be what almost everyone will be looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 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.

Template:Uw-useless1

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 00:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, vaguely offensive redirect to {{uw-test1}}. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find it to be useless.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there are also redirects at Template:Uw-useless3 and Template:Uw-useless4 (but not Template:Uw-useless2) that could be added to this discussion. - Eureka Lott 18:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - they're inconsistent for one thing ({{uw-useless4}} redirects to a vandalism warning; courtesy ping ToBeFree who redirected them) but also "useless" is a value judgement, and I am having trouble thinking of a situation where this template could be used in a way that was not a personal attack against the editor tagged. This all seems like a failure to assume good faith. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand the target templates auto-subst, so the target user is highly unlikely to see the "useless" message anyway. I still favour deletion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Ivanvector. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Deletion is fine, my edit summary when converting it to a redirect was "unnecessary, unspecific and unhelpful template". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have now bundled the other two redirects into this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Inconsistent, and better to use the actual template which doesn't include a borderline personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 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.

Pacific Islander (U.S. Census)

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 Pacific Islander Americans. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be changed to Pacific Islander Americans, as that article more adeptly explains what the subject of Pacific Islander (U.S. Census) is. Ajshul 😃 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands, which aligns with the Pacific Islander Americans article. - Eureka Lott 16:28, 30 May 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.

PuffballsUnited

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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other Among Us developers have redirects. Also, Puffballs was notable for creating the Henry Stickmin series ten years before Among Us was released. I don't see how this redirect is useful.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Forest Willard redirects to Among Us. And he's a developer of the game. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 17:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Along with the mention of his screenname in the article. I don't believe it is Wikipedia policy to list the handles of every person to work on a piece of media and who uses it as a pseudonym unless that person is a media personality who is widely known by that handle.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Zxcvbnm. -- dylx 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a verifiable alias for InnerSloth (which redirects to the same target), who is developer and publisher for this game, as described in the article. We don't have an article on the other title identified by HighlyLogicalVulcan and as such it's unambiguous. I have no idea what [lack of] policy Zxcvbnm is referring to but I'll suggest that WP:IDLI applies. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The name is mentioned in the target article and no where else on Wikipedia. Someone searching this can get verification who PuffballsUnited is, as well as plenty of information on his only notable game. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 1 June 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.

US-amerikanisch

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 deleted by Bbb23 per WP:G5. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • US-amerikanisch → American  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • US-amerikanischer → American  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be an improper WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this in any way used in Pennsylvanian Dutch? IF not, then delete -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per LaundryPizza03, which seems to be the provision of justification requested by the nominator. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:12, 31 May 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.

Template:R to related term

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 withdrawn. Initiated a requested move discussion instead. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects have been targeted back and forth between the current target and Template:R to related word but as far as I can tell have never had a formal discussion. I think "term" refers to a word or phrase, not necessarily a topic, and these should be retargeted to Template:R to related word. I have not tagged the redirects so as to not disturb their use while the discussion takes place. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 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.

Grammar Nazi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Grammar Nazi

Tartarian Empire

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 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this is an example of a conspiracy theory (see this recent CityLab article), it has never been mentioned at the target list, as far as I can tell. Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE, item 10, and to encourage the creation of an aricle. - Eureka Lott 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as proposed to encourage article creation. Appears to be a notable hoax, but a very recent one. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:00, 31 May 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.

South Rim

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 Grand Canyon National Park. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These likely should all target the same place and could target appropriate sections at one of these pages. I am not sure what target is best, and these are also somewhat ambiguous terms. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Grand Canyon National Park. While the North and South Rims technically extend all along the canyon outside the park boundaries, the term is most commonly used for the developed places within the park. MB 00:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is also the North Rim, Arizona stub that should be reconciled with all this as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all of the above to Grand Canyon National Park. The "south rim" (lower case) is an adjective plus a common noun; it refers to the entire southern rim of the canyon. The "South Rim" (upper case) is a proper name, defined by usage; it refers to the central portion of the south rim, located within Grand Canyon National Park. "North Rim" and "north rim" are defined in a similar fashion. Ideally, the lower case versions would redirect to "Grand Canyon", but I don't even know if that's possible, and in any case would be horribly confusing to most folks. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:36, 30 May 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.

Colorado Canyon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Colorado Canyon

Grand canynon

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 05:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A miscapitalization plus a misspelling make this an unlikely search term that merits deletion so as to not clutter search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not apparently useful (pageviews). Redirects shouldn't clutter search results, the search engine consolidates results for redirected titles as far as I know, but there also doesn't seem to be any good reason to keep this around. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:04, 31 May 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_May_30&oldid=1140357267"