Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 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. ✗plicit 13:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The fire at the oil depot in Vasylkiv → 2022 Vasylkiv oil depot fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cluttered original title left over after a page move – not very concise and may interfere with the search engine. ComplexRational (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:52, 4 July 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.

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. Two relists due to a clear lack of consensus between deleting, disambiguating, retargeting, or even keeping have failed to attain consensus on any solution. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreasonable force → Police brutality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This could apply to things besides law enforcement. Delete as too vague. MB 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, also a possible synonym for disproportionate force as a war crime. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not disambiguate, then? BD2412 T 02:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or possibly DABify if a good DAB draft is shown. Veverve (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Disambiguate if there are other uses. Search results only find examples. Excessive force and disproportionate force are similar, and the words are not ambiguous in meaning, only the context; could these be explained in use of force or a similar article? 82.132.184.38 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question would it be better retargetted to Right of self-defense which where reasonable force is currently pointing to as a Redirect from antonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Use of force ––FormalDude talk 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:11, 3 July 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.

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. ✗plicit 11:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck Joe Biden → Let's Go Brandon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page was was already unanimous deleted. Not sure why or how it was recreated. Same reasons as previous deletion, available here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemydoodle (talk • contribs) 10:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ilovemydoodle, the redirect was discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 20, where there appears to have been consensus for its creation. I don't see any problems with the redirect: it goes exactly where it's supposed to: the target article even has the term in bold in its opening sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Happy Editing--IAmChaos 17:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a consensus to delete the article. Setting aside that that consensus was effectively overridden in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon, about a closely related phrase, a consensus to delete an article does not (usually) preclude creating a redirect at that title. If the only reason advanced for deletion here is Same reasons as previous deletion, no part of Elli's rationale there applies to a redirect, so speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#1, no intelligible grounds for deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I assume that a "delete" result of an AFD does not preclude later redirection by default? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mellohi!: Isn't that what I just said? Or did one of us drop a "not"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I believe we did not miscommunicate here. I was going to ask you about two July 1 RFDs about redirects that were nominated for deletion (Sarah Forbes (cricketer) and Ivan Pavlovsky (gymnast)) just because they occupied the same locations as deleted articles. I had contemplated speedy-keeping them but I was too hesitant. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mellohi!: I've closed the latter under SKCRIT#1. I've also explained in the close why I don't think the former falls under that. Off-topic, so, feel free to follow up on my talkpage if you have further questions. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NB: Tamzin reverted her Ivan close due to a delete vote appearing during the closure. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tamzin. Likely search term for the current target but also this specific phrase is discussed there as well. Previous consensus appeared to be for this to be a redirect and no real reason to delete has been given. Not all deleted articles should be turned into redirects, and not always right away, but this seems like a case of it definitely being a suitable target. A7V2 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid search term, discussed extensively at target. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 4 July 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.

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. Given the degree of participation and binary disagreement between keep and delete, this seems unlikely to benefit from being relisted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!~!@!~1`2 → Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Difficult to use search handles, “~!@!~1`2” at the end of the title makes this page even more difficult to access. Q28 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible search term. Slywriter (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible and completely useless. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible, mostly because of the tildas, at-sign, and numbers at the end. The number of exclamation points also fails to match the essay. Fieari (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an ancient redirect to a humorous essay which is both used in historical discussions and which gets some page views. 60 is page views a year suggests that some people are either using this or are coming across it in archives. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term. Rename the essay if preferable to spell it out. czar 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, completely useless. I like it. J947 † ^edits 08:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a bit funny, it's very old, it isn't harmful, it's in WP-space, and WP:CHEAP. Skynxnex (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too damn long for it to be useful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 10 July 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.

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:Database queries. ✗plicit 11:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DQ → Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think the page should redirect to Wikipedia:Database queries. Q28 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DQ is a long-established abbreviation for Dragon Quest, a franchise maintained by the company. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The redirect is a legacy of when the short-lived Dragon Quest project was merged into the Square Enix project way back in 2011; it was a little-trafficked project then and it's an unlikely redirect now. If Database Queries wants it, it makes sense to switch it over. --PresN 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget is much more likely to be used. czar 21:41, 5 July 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.

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 11:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Kruse (Politicians) → Michael Kruse (politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No use, incorrect capitalization and plural disambiguator. Title used for about 20 minutes before page move. MB 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and IAmChaos. The miscapitalization could also be the result of holding the ⇧ Shift key too long, but the plural at the end makes it...just implausible. If there were multiple politicians with that name, it might be fine, but if this guy is the only notable politician with that name on the site, we might have to do without this redirect. Regards, SONIC678 03:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible and useless. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Polonomy (talk) 08:10, 6 July 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.

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! 04:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Polar vector → Pseudovector  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As pointed out in the target article, a polar vector is contrasted with a pseudovector; they are not the same thing. Given that polar vectors are implicitly described by our article on vectors (they do not carry the additional sign flip under reflection of a space as pseudovectors do), we could either point the redirect there, or expand it into a clarifying article to contrast with pseudovectors, if the distinction is noteworthy enough to effectively get its own article. ChromaNebula (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand the nom's motivation--polar vectors are just ordinary vectors and that would be the natural target. However, polar vectors are mentioned 40 times in the Pseudovector article and discussed in some depth there, whereas polar is mentioned not at all in the Vector (mathematics and physics) article. So the current redirect is compelling to me as the best place for a reader to learn about polar vs axial varieties of vectors. Not opposed to a standalone article, but I'm not sure it is needed. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, ditto what Mark viking said. --Steve (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is also the same reason why integral ideal is a redirect to fractional ideal. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:20, 3 July 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.

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 Transmisogyny now that we have an article about it. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Discrimination against trans women → Trans woman#Discrimination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Discrimination against transgender women → Trans woman#Discrimination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Discrimination against transgender men is its own page, but this is a redirect. Instead, it should be targeted at transmisogyny. Which is more appropriate? Or more complete — Tazuco 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transmisogyny; it's more appropriate to redirect to the article that covers it in more detail. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This looks to me like an avoided double redirect to Discrimination against transgender women. If that redirect is wrong, fix that first. Or create an article ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Discrimination against transgender women bundled per Shhhnotsoloud. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for bundling, tagged as avoided double. I say Retarget to Transmisogyny per above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:26, 4 July 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.

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 Los Baños, Laguna#Education. There is a consensus to refine the redirect to the Education section. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Trace College → Los Baños, Laguna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirecting a school to a city where it belongs seems very implausible. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirecting an otherwise non-notable educational establishment to its location is common, and in this case unambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine Target to Los Baños, Laguna#Education --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer deletion of these kinds of redirects where there isn't really any information given. But at the very least it should be refined to Los Baños, Laguna#Education. A7V2 (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refine per above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:22, 4 July 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.

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 keep. The nominator retracted their nomination rationale, thus WP:CSK#1: absence of deletion rationale. Only vote here is a keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Polish fighter3000 → Jan-Krzysztof Duda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Struck. I've got to get off of lichess. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Plainly not a good redirect target; seems a bit meme-y? If this is a new nickname for Duda, this is certainly the first I'm hearing of it. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 01:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep because this is the username of his Chess.com account. GMHikaru is a redirect to Hikaru Nakamura, and that is the username of his Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Twitch accounts. FAdesdae378 01:53, 3 July 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.