Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1

February 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2022.

Rhyolite Park

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Rhyolite Park

It is wednesday my dudes

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 23:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; there is a meme associated with this phrase and often an image of the frog at the target, but unless there's a due mention at the target the redirect isn't useful. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a joke repository. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the weirdest and nonsensical redirects I've ever seen. Agreed with Ohnoitsjame. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the most relevant thing here that Wikipedia is not is Know Your Meme. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Redirect creator) The topic is discussed CONSTANTLY in the edit revisions and talk page of the article, and I think it at least deserves a mention, though I do understand why deletion is valid. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of coverage needed to satisfy WP:DUE would be mentions of the meme in high-quality RS coverage about the frog species. This doesn't appear to exist based on a few GScholar and internet searches. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dead meme redirect which is likely to confuse readers, especially if they think Wikipedia might have an article on the meme itself (which it will not because of a lack of sources) and end up at a page for the frog.
  • Delete per the above. If it redirected to somewhere on the page that made mention of this meme, then it might be more appropriate. However since it's more of a joke, it's not appropriate at all. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:16, 6 February 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.

Tejasswi Prakash Kundrra

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 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created as a result of multiple inappropriate page moves ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced surname is a likely violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not even mention her relationship with Karan Kundrra (I assume because editors are unenthusiastic about digging through all the garbage tabloids in Google News to find something that actually qualifies as an WP:RS), and the most that is known at this point is Karan's father's statement a couple of days ago that they may marry soon [1]. AFAIK up to now there is no concrete statement. The subject certainly hasn't yet changed her surname. Since the target is a WP:BLP, we should err on the side of caution and delete speculative redirects like this. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just notified the target talk page of this discussion. Jay (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not her name as yet Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 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.

Easily confused words

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Easily confused words

Double-redirect

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Double-redirect

Wikipedia:Headlines

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Wikipedia:Headlines

Ironbottom Sound: The Guadacanal Campaign

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! 08:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely redirect, considering the typo included (Guadacanal instead of Guadalcanal). Fram (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Ironbottom Sound: The Guadalcanal Campaign (with the missing el) would be obviously correct as an {{r from full name}} and should be created. Guadacanal is a plausible misspelling; Guadacanal redirects to Guadalcanal, and there's even a neighborhood on Guadalcanal called Guadacanal Resort, suggesting that this may be a variant local spelling... Or that whoever wrote that unsourced article made a typo. So, the combination of two valid redirects adds up to a valid redirect. Plus this misspelling is currently used on BoardGameGeek. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of Tamzin's points. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a reasonable and probably common spelling mistake. Guinness323 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 5 February 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.

Book 3

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. As too ambiguous. Jay (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a disambiguation page for this title, sure, but I would imagine such a disambiguation page would be colossal, so maybe it would be better to delete and simply go by search results Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The top hits on google for me right now are about Surface Book 3 but that would be equally as surprising a target as the current one. After that the results are for a whole host of different things, so there is no primary topic and it's too generic a term for a dab. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree that there can be no reasonable target. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Searched up Book 3, and literally all the results are about the Surface 3 Detachable Laptop by Microsoft. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Hopelessly unspecific and a dab page could never be comprehensive. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 4 February 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.

WikiProject:Micronations

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. As a namespace without community support. Jay (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at WP:SHORTCUT, and as can be seen here, there has been a general consensus against "WikProject:" as a pseudonamespace. This is the only existing page beginning with "WikiProject:" or "Wikiproject:". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fine how it is. Just more confusing for people. Further evidence of Wikipedia's bias against Micronations. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the topic. This is about how it is a redirect between Article namespace and Wikipedia namespace (And before you ask, no, Wikiproject is not a namespace. Putting any prefix other than those laid out in WP:Namespace on a page just puts it in article namespace). The same would go for any cross-namespace redirect, even those with notable topics. Also, this is the only article with the "wikiproject" fake namespace, as can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex search.☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per precedence and previous consensus for similar titles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see bias here. Deletion would give micronations consistency with other topics. Certes (talk) 23:25, 1 February 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.

Template:User sandbo

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 per WP:CSD#G8. ✗plicit 11:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:User sandbo → User:Elon musk has no friends/sandbox2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest deleting Template:User sandbo. Looking at the template creator's name and the rest of this user's edits, all of their pages are probably vandalism and could arguably be deleted. One of the pages has a hidden HTML comment that says New Zealand is so mega gay and homo. But it's not a slam dunk so I thought it'd be simpler to just move this to userspace. Sadly though the redirect the template move left behind does not qualify for R2 since it is template namespace, so here we are at RFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD G6: A page was unambiguously created in the wrong namespace, and you created this redirect in the course of remedying that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:19, 1 February 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.

Ss insignia

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! 07:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Expendable misspelling. Hildeoc (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, and the amount of redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Ss. (Refer to the titles that begin with "Ss ".) that refer to ships. Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck-out a bit. Probably would have helped if I had looked at the redirect's target prior to my comment; it's not a ship at all. (The rest still applies though.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel. Falls into the category of "Not worth creating, not worth RfDing." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as standard {{R from miscapitalization}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not sure what is meant by "expendable". Not a misspelling, just incorrect capitalisation. A7V2 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 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.

Binding sites, antibody

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Binding sites, antibody

Functional site

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Functional site

Main site

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) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Otherwise, this phrase seems like it's unavoidably ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Could refer to many things. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 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.

Receptor serine/threonine kinase

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 Serine/threonine-specific protein kinase. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These seems like a surprise, but the more I look at them, the more I'm confused what they are supposed to represent. Maybe Serine/threonine-specific protein kinase? Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Proposed target seems much better than the current one. Although I'm still equally confused as to what these redirects represent. CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 8 February 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.

Single protein

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Single protein

Plant protein

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Plant protein

MOS:NOTBROKEN

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piping and redirects. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect guideline isn’t part of/doesn’t seem to be related to the Manual of Style, so it doesn’t make sense to have this psuedo-namespace redirect. —GMX(ping!) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I saw a edit summary link to MOS:NOTBROKEN but it was a red link so I created it, but since there is extremely low pageviews I guess you could delete it, but just because there are low pageviews doesn't mean you should delete it. I think keep, but it doesn't really matter. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains it. We often link to WP:NOTBROKEN to explain why bypassing certain types of redirect can be unhelpful. Perhaps someone accidentally wrote MOS:NOTBROKEN instead, even though the target is not part of MOS. Certes (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piping_and_redirects as a logical target about the same topic in the MOS. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:22, 1 February 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.

High protein

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#High protein

Gaycism

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. Editors remain divided on whether this term is ambiguous enough to justify deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaycism → Homophobia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirect. Likely a reference to the Gay Nazis myth (which is bound up in homophobia), but I don't think this should redirect there as it seems to be a neologism and an unhelpful search term. AFreshStart (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It might be a little unhelpful but the term does get 58,000 pings on Google and has an article about the term [2], this is verifiable evidence the term exists. Couldn't find anything on the Nazi myth concern. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah of course, for some reason I thought it was a portmanteau of "gay fascism", not "gay racism". Either way I think it's a bit of a neologism, and not something people are going to look up on Wikipedia. —AFreshStart (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. It might not be the most common term but it still exists and is relevant. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that the term can be found on Google is not relevant, except to the extent that any of the Google hits are WP:RS which could be used to expand some Wikipedia article. A redirect for a term needs to point readers to information in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has no information about this term, not even a single mention. This leaves readers to guess wildly about what the term means and how it's related to the article they land on. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WP:RS that explains this term. I cited it above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:R#Delete guideline, reason 8 (novel or very obscure synonym for an article name). A quick search on Google reveals no mainstream adoption of the term. Pyrite Pro (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is perhaps obscure, but given the Slate aticle, not very obscure DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward retarget to racism in the LGBT community per GQ blog article, Huffpost, and Salon. Unsure whether a humor book Battling Gaycism counts. Couldn't find a source verifying connection between homophobia and "gaycism". George Ho (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Pyrite Pro, DGG, and AFreshStart: (pinging IP editors wouldn't be successful, would it?) What do you think about my alternative suggestion? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @George Ho: I'm pretty sure that won't have actually sent pings just now. Echo ignores changes to existing lines when it checks for pings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, pinging IP editors doesn't work. As for the retarget suggestion, it's best to add the term to the proposed target articles first and see if it sticks or if editors there have some objection. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Salon and GQ articles as part of "Further readings" section. Couldn't use them for prose addition of "gaycism" yet. George Ho (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed redirecting to Racism in the LGBT community. The slate article indicates this term should replace "homophobia", therefore, they must mean the same thing. This term has nothing to do with racism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the Slate article, the author said that the term may be potentially broader and doesn't always mean "anti-LGBTQ bigotry". Ah... found the Wiktionary page about the term when I was gonna create it. I just now added another definition there. George Ho (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – is gaycism an ambiguous term, being sometimes a synonym for homophobia and at other times describing racism by some gay/LGBT people? If so then a dab may be the best outcome. Certes (talk) 23:40, 4 February 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.

5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Birthing person

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Birthing person

Fish protein

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 Fish as food#Nutritional value. Jay (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fish protein → Protein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Fish proteins → Fish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither one of the target pages adequately identified what a "fish protein" is. I'm also not seeing any apparent retargeting options; I did see Fish protein powder, but I don't think that's an adequate target since it's a subtopic about the subject of these redirects rather than the subject itself. If not deleted, these redirects should probably target the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Fish as food#Nutritional value where fish as a source of protein is discussed. It seems like the dietary context is what most users would be seeking with these search terms. I would also support simply targeting Fish as food rather than the most relevant section. Regardless of the context, users would be disappointed to reach either of the broad articles currently targeted. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Mdewman6, although I'm mildly in favour of just Fish as food (I'm thinking fish as a protein). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Fish as food#Nutritional value per Mdewman6. --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_1&oldid=1070886016"