Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 8

August 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2023.

Neo-communism

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. Participants agree that there should be an article written on this topic. Jay 💬 15:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why the term redirects here, but this isn't the only meaning of "neo-communism" and should be deleted until an article is written on the specific term. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. This is something people might search for and having it go nowhere isn't a good option. Either leave the redirect in place, or turn it into a DAB page or a stub article for now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a misleading redirect. It implies to the reader "neo-communism" refers to eurocommunism when it does not. This term's primary usage is as a pejorative in European post-communist context, primarily towards left-wing (usually democratic socialist) parties who are accussed of trying to restore "communist dictatorships" by their right-wing opponents. That, or to imply communism is an ideology of the past in process of being rehabilitated. There is no existent appropriate target article. –Vipz (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Vipz, I believe what you're referring to is Neo-Sovietism. I think it would be reasonable to disambiguate between Neo-Marxism, Eurocommunism, the New Left, Neo-Sovietism, Neo-Stalinism, and the New Communist movement. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:REDLINK. Disambiguation is for topics with the same title, not for lists of related concepts. Until there is an article on this distinct topic, this is better left to the search engine rather than a list of our best guesses as to what a reader might be looking for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ivanvector. --Lenticel (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 18 August 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).

⏫ and ⏬

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 Miscellaneous Technical#(23C0–23FF). The alternative target of Media control symbols was brought up, but there's little discussion over why that's a good target, especially given the lack of mention at said target and an opposing comment by Ivanvector. As such, I find the current consensus to be a retarget to the unicode block. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⏩ is the character for fast forwarding and I don't believe these characters represent the same thing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if one of them is FFW, then other one should be REWind... and not both FFW -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither are seemingly used to commonly refer to fast forward or rewind. It seems that ⏫ is mostly commonly used with relation to either going up or speeding something up, but I could not find one overwhelming use of it. The same applies to ⏬, however it is also sometimes used in relation to downloading as well. I could find no overwhelming single use for that emoji either. Seeing that there's a bit of ambiguity and disambiguating based on perceptions of a symbol that is not widely used to mean any of the things it would disambiguate would lead to further confusion as opposed to deletion. TartarTorte 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no problem redirecting to someplace else. Emojis are valid redirects and should not be kept just because the current target is incorrect. Worse case, redirect to the emoji block. Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, maybe we should article-ise (or dab-ise) all emoji. I think the status quo of redirecting some to their topic, some to their block is undesirable and the stubbiest stub would be superior. J947 † edits 00:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N is the reason e.g. 😂 and 💩 have their own articles. How are even the stubbiest stubs for non-notable emoji superior to redirecting them to notable pages/blocks? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D08:7F2D:308A:2C4 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG need not be the be-all and end-all of article suitability. It's immensely valuable for most articles, but for certain things like emoji it doesn't really work. If we could make a new class of mainspace page halfway between an article and dab/SIA for emoji that's the best option in my opinion. RS is a major problem – it's fair enough to say we might as well leave this to Emojipedia – but to give its code, its block, and a few of its meanings in one article with helpful links and a picture or two seems preferable to current state of their willy-nilly redirection to various of those options. It's not likely they're really able to be grouped in a list article in an intuitive manner, which would otherwise be a superior option to separate pages. J947 † edits 11:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just noticed that in the Emoji article, both ⏫ and ⏬ redirect to "Media control symbols". Perhaps this would be a better target? Enix150 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Media control symbols. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is a mention added to Media control symbols I would support retargetting there, but as of now it seems that it, at least to me, is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE to go there from either of these emoji if there's no content there explaining what they are. TartarTorte 18:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 15:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Technical#(23C0–23FF) per Duckmather. These aren't media control symbols, which all symbolize actions on a horizontal axis (other than the eject button which symbolizes leaving the axis), because they represent actions performed on a one-dimensional magnetic tape. You can't move up and down on a cassette tape, only forwards and backwards. Even when we got digital media like CDs and DVDs with track/chapter skip, the media itself is still one-dimensional, just coiled instead of flat, and the icons for those functions still symbolize the horizontal axis. These could be analogous with page up and page down keys but they're also not mentioned in that article, and anecdotally I've never seen these icons used on a keyboard. For graphical icons which don't obviously represent a subject, the target should be a page with information on the icon itself, or if we don't have one it should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Technical#(23C0–23FF) as the only positive use case I can imagine for searching these symbols with no clear meaning is to get their hex/dec code. Unless someone can actually come up with an example, these are not Media control symbols. Deletion is also fine. ― Synpath 16:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Technical#(23C0–23FF) per Synpath. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:14, 10 August 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).

Feminine side

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 💬 09:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a suitable target? Seems like too broad of a topic to redirect to Anima and animus, though I'm not seeing a better target right now (Femininity crossed my mind, but there's no mention of this specific phrasing). Maybe a WP:R#D10 case? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 August 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).

Wikipedia:The rules of Wikipedia

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:Policies and guidelines. Very clear. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left over from cleaning up some disruptive page moves a decade ago. I doubt anyone searching for "the rules of wikipedia" is looking for a half finished policy proposal in a blocked user's userspace. Perhaps retarget to something like WP:5P or WP:Policies and Guidelines, otherwise delete. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 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).

Wikipedia:Wikipedia do's and dont's

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:Dos and don'ts. very clear, WP:SNOW clause. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is left over from cleaning up some disruptive page moves by a sock puppet a decade ago. I highly doubt that someone searching project space for "wikipedia do's and don'ts" is going to be looking for a half finished userspace policy proposal from an editor that was blocked 13 years ago. Delete unless a good target can be identified. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts. Not necessarily opposed to deletion, but it's been around long enough that I feel it would be less harmful to point it to an actual help page. The current target's concept of defining a narrow list of things that Wikipedia is (in opposition to the longstanding policy of allowing anything other than the narrow list of things it is not) is unlikely to ever be adopted as policy, particularly since its creator is effectively sitebanned. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. The similar page names makes this the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts per Ivanvector. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:00, 15 August 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).

User:28 cm Howitzer L/10

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 per U2 by Fastily. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a non-existent user. The creator of the target article had accidentally moved their draft from User:Chris.w.braun/sandbox to this title, and subsequently to WP:28 cm Howitzer L/10 (which was deleted as G6). I don't think that this title is useful. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD U2 (nonexistent user), CSD G6 (uncontroversial, due to being created in error), and CSD R3 (implausible recent redirect). I've added the appropriate tags. Duckmather (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC); amended 19:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, actually, this page was created in 2014, so no R3. Duckmather (talk) 19:27, 8 August 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).
Hi everyone. Not sure what the problem with the title of 28 cm Howitzer L/10 is. This title distinguishes the gun from 28 cm Haubitze L/12, so it's all good. Hope I could help. Cheers, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.w.braun: there is none; the redirect in question was in userspace, implying it was the user page of user 28 cm Howitzer L/10, who does not exist and therefore should not have a user page. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Skarmory, thank you for the clarification. Cheers, Chris.w.braun (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+95 (disambiguation)

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • +95 (disambiguation) → 95  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page 95 does not disambiguate anything that is related to by +95. There is a redirect +95 which targets Telephone numbers in Myanmar as +95 is the country code there. If this redirect were retargeted there it would be deleted as per WP:G14, but there does not seem to be a speedy delete criterion that I could find that applies to this where it targets a DAB, but nothing mentioned at the DAB is related to the topic. As well, it seems, if +95 were added to the DAB, this redirect would still be unnecessary as +95 would not be ambiguous at the DAB. TartarTorte 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. There is nothing to disambiguate. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 20:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "+95" is the number 95 in most uses (as it isn't negative 95 or 95i), and the year 95 A.D. is sometimes written as +95 , so you do have 3 uses that you can use as a disambiguation page -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created by a bot because +95 was tagged as a disambiguation page by its creator even though it had only one entry. The user may have wanted to add more entries, but did not get to it, and Tavix un-disambiguated it two years later. The IP's suggestions do not appeal to me unless we have precedence for disambiguation pages for numbers prefixed with +. Jay 💬 15:48, 19 August 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).

Coach lastname redirects

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 Mass deleted under G5. This discussion was heading for delete, and the articles have since been G5'd by zzuuzz. Disambiguation was mentioned as a possibility; there is no prejudice from this discussion against recreating any of these as DABs, if desired. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous search terms which could refer to a number of different coaches. Based on a search of Category:Coaches by sport, there are 20+ coaches with this last name.

  • Coach Ash – 37 matches
  • Coach Brown – 65 matches
  • Coach Campbell – 25 matches
  • Coach Cooper – 23 matches
  • Coach Day – 37 matches
  • Coach Ford – 158 matches
  • Coach Gill – 24 matches
  • Coach Graham – 25 matches
  • Coach Hayes – 23 matches
  • Coach Johnson – 60 matches
  • Coach Kelly – 38 matches
  • Coach Long – 23 matches
  • Coach Meyer – 35 matches
  • Coach Patterson – 20 matches
  • Coach Perry – 20 matches
  • Coach Price – 21 matches
  • Coach Ross – 40 matches
  • Coach Ryan – 37 matches
  • Coach Shaw – 52 matches
  • Coach Strong – 24 matches
  • Coach Wilson – 54 matches

I believe they should all be deleted. There are a hundred plus other redirects created by same user that could have reasonably been included with this nomination, but these were the ones with the most matches. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ambiguous, not useful. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and above. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as too ambiguous. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To disambiguate has been found the solution for Judge Williams, Judge Grant, etc. 'Coach' is rather less a title than 'Judge', but still worth considering. J947 † edits 21:34, 8 August 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).

Coach Lombardi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 19#Coach Lombardi

Lane Train

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Lane Train

D. A. Cooper

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 (G5) as the creation of a banned user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect and not mentioned anywhere at target. Unlikely typo given A and B key placements. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 22:00, 8 August 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).

Coach Gruden

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22#Coach Gruden

Coach Harbaugh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22#Coach Harbaugh

Gesine Prado

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 Procedural close. Wrong venue; the discussion has since been moved here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be the other way around, as she has been credited for the last few years as Gesine Prado. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this should be procedurally closed with a WP:RM opened in lieu to move Gesine Bullock-Prado to Gesine Prado. TartarTorte 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I forgot about that forum. I have since moved the discussion there. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:29, 8 August 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).

Matthew Heappey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#Matthew Heappey

Olivia Page

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Olivia Page

Vlad Zachary

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Vlad Zachary

Gay fascism

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 Gay Nazis. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently moved to Racism in the LGBT community#Gay neo-Nazism from Gay Nazis myth (which is where the contents of the original page were moved to by Buidhe).

I would revert this, but I think since the original term may be ambiguous that a disambiguation page is necessary. However, I don't want to do this without input from other editors. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Nazis myth was at this title for a long time before I was able to think of a better title. Otherwise, I don't really have an opinion which target would be best. (t · c) buidhe 01:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, thank you for moving the page!
The fact that the Gay Nazis myth was at this title for a long time is one reason why I am somewhat reluctant to make this a disambiguation page.
However, since Gay Nazis is a disambig, I think this similarly confusing term should be the same. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gay Nazis per nom. Jay 💬 11:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gay Nazis. I agree with a disambiguation page, it's most sensical and appropriate. Apparently Gay Nazis already exists, so it should be redirected there as someone already suggested. --JonahF (talk) 21:18, 18 August 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).

City (Georgia)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#City (Georgia)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_8&oldid=1172876327"