Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8

July 8

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

Zrinyi tank

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn- it's an assault gun, which is similar enough
  • Zrinyi tank → 43M Zrínyi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading- the target is not a tank. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:35, 8 July 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).

Bakugan

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 02:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Bakugan redirects to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. But shouldn't there be an article about Bakugan itself (as the media franchise as a whole, from 2007 to present day)? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like the page for the first anime is serving as the general article for the franchise via the Other Media, Games and Merchandising sections. Janky, but the redirect seems helpful I suppose. Splitting the content into a new article would seem warranted. ― Synpath 01:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as currently the correct target (it discusses more than just the show). No prejudice against potentially moving the current target to this and/or some kind of split. A7V2 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2, although I am not opposed to moving the current target over the redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 10 July 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).

The Silent Service (TV series)

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 05:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target section does not exist, and target article does not mention the redirect's name. jlwoodwa (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this, but I don't recall the details. The targeted section did exist in the article at the time. There is an IMDB entry for it. And there are numerous articles that link directly to this (not through a template), suggesting there may be some notability. But as things currently stand, I'm not sure where this could be retargeted. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum, it appears the content was removed on 14:55, 3 May 2023 by 71.68.129.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the comment reverted edits done by a possible sockpuppet -- although the content had been present in the article for a long time previous and the edit seems to have removed a lot of material. There followed a series of revert warring between IP 162 and 85.255.237.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which ended when King Shadeed made a final revert that essentially endorsed the removal done by IP 162. I've no idea whether there was any basis for the sock puppet accusation or the final removal. As far as I can tell (with very limited expertise) the removed content appears to have been valid content. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm just seeing the notification. The vandal edits were done by the same person behind the multiple IPs, which apparently IS a sock puppet. I've also noticed in the same IP 71's history, the same user behind IP 85.255.235.185 also re-did the vandal edits. It's the same person behind the other multiple IPs who attacked the same user IP 71 just to have his/her way. Feel free to tag me again when needed. King Shadeed (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    King Shadeed@ what was the vandalism? The edit by 71.68.129.162 appeared to remove a huge chunk of content with no reason other than an apparently unfounded accusation of sock puppetry. older ≠ wiser 19:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked back in history. The IP user apparently was cleaning up vandalism that was originally done on April 28. There was also a "continued from" I've noticed that was done by the other person behind multiple IDs and the IP user 71.68.129.162 was cleaning it up. Then I've noticed as I went through the history that 71.68.129.162 managed to have combined the lists of Revue Studios and Universal Television into one list. I've noticed that the person also did the same thing at a few more pages. King Shadeed (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still confused as to precisely what the vandalism was or what has happened to the large amount of content that was removed. older ≠ wiser 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @King Shadeed: You supported the edits of an editor which were supposedly reverts of a sock, but you have not been able to explain how that removal of content is related to the April 28 edits. Also @MrOllie: you repeated the removal of content after the page was protected, so you may want to explain as well. Jay 💬 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar with this tv series if a page is required to be made for it Conboy137 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create article if Conboy137 comes up with a draft before this RfD closes, or delete for now and create as article when time permits. Any debate on whether the content at the target should have been removed, may be moot considering the redirect term was a one line mention in a table of California National Productions with no sourcing. Bringing it back with sourcing is not going to be easy. Jay 💬 17:04, 15 July 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).

El Muerto (2024 film)

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) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This film no longer has a release date; all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated to El Muerto (upcoming film), while the draftspace redirects have also been updated to point to the target Draft:El Muerto (upcoming film), and are unlikely to be useful in the event the film receives a new release date or not. The lattermost draft redirect is an incomplete disambiguation, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Draft:El Muerto (2024 film) and Draft:El Muerto (film) as {{R from move}}s in the Draft namespace targeting the live draft, considering that the Draft namespace is not indexed by search engines (and thus should never appear in search engines' search results) the fact that these redirects retain a trail about where the contents of the draft are currently located, and redirects in the Draft namespace are not intended to be used as search terms to locate pages in the article space. (In other words, the majority of the reasons the nominator has stated for the Draft namespace redirects to be deleted is essentially not applicable.) Weak keep El Muerto (2024 film) as potentially harmless for now since regardless of the disambiguator, it gets readers to the information they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The two draft redirects have no practical function. El Muerto (2024 film) is factually incorrect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Definitely don't delete the draft redirects, per Steel1943 but also since if someone has the url saved, then it will still work (why make it difficult for them?). Keep the non draft one as well as a perfectly valid search term given the initial release date was 2024. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all per above. Jay 💬 11:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: the Draftspace redirects can be classed as {{R from move}}s and El Muerto (2024 film) is a possible search term. However, I am not completely sure about the latter because it is still misleading, but if the original release date was 2024 then keeping is fine. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:46, 10 July 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).

Maynardville Highway

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 (nomination withdrawn)

I can find no reliable sources indicating that this these is a valid alternative names that these are valid alternative names- they appear to be random points along the highway. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.
[1]https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/projects-region-1/state-route-33.html
[2]https://www.wate.com/news/local-news/tdot-breaks-ground-on-maynardville-highway-project-in-union-county/
[3]https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/long-range-planning/ctpg-documents/Maynardville_report_080916_with-Appendix.pdf

https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-planning-improvements-to-dangerous-maynardville-pike-intersection/ https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-news/safety-improvements-to-dangerous-halls-intersection-nearly-complete/ https://www.knoxcounty.org/epw/TE%26TC_info.php

All you needed was a little research. It exists, and its an official name per the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:19, 8 July 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).

GGKEY (identifier)

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) 23:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • GGKEY (identifier) → Google Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not linked to in any template. If a template can be found for this to be linked to, then a redirect of this nature may make sense. However, at the moment, it doesn't really work as an {{R from identifier}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We already have the redirect GGKEY pointing to the same target (which doesn't say what it is though). Jay 💬 06:42, 18 July 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).

Sickie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 18#Sickie

Angry mob

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. The discussion hasn't progressed as we might have liked, so closing this in lieu of, if a consensus is at all found, it being after protracted negotiation. Anyone with a viewpoint on this issue may immediately renominate these redirects – but in separate nominations please, as the outcomes for each redirect are likely to be different. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 10:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angry mob is an {{R with history}} that has targeted Crowd, Mob rule, and Mobbing during its existence as a redirect. Not too sure which one of these it should target ... or if the article hiding in the edit history should be restored ... but bringing it here for discussion to see if a consensus can be formed on this. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep because an "angry mob" is basically just a mob in general (I don't think mobs can express much more emotions than anger). Duckmather (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (at least the uppercase one) to The Angry Mob. In any case I find Crowd psychology (the target of Mob psychology and Mob behavior) to be a better target than the current or previous targets. Jay 💬 11:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 11:44, 8 July 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).

Grace Warrior

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Grace Warrior

Saens Peña Square

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 Tijuca. signed, Rosguill talk 05:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a re-direct from a hoax page that was created by a vandal only account that was turned into a re-direct in good faith. I removed the hoax contents from target. Re-direct can go now. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - searching online this appears it may be real, an alternate name for "Praça Saenz Peña" or "Praça Saens Peña". There is also a film with this title given as the English translation by IMDB ([4]). I'm unsure how to assess this, but of course with the content removed it is not a suitable redirect. Normally I'd say to send to AfD but the creator was blocked for not citing reliable sources and I'm unable to access the websites referenced even though the article was created just a few months ago. Deleting would also introduce attribution issues at the current target due to the merged content appearing in the edit history, so if deleted it may be necessary for revdeletion. Pinging @TimothyBlue: who merged the content. A7V2 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Response This edit was part of a series of well disguised vandalism run. Have a look at Special:Diff/1143229167 and Special:Diff/1144034119 Those edits at first glance look legitimate. If you actually go and fact check, you'll find the links either dead; pull up a legitimate page that don't relate to anything that its intended to support and the information added was incorrect. I became aware of it when I noticed something was a little bit off when I started looking for other sources to support something that didn't make sense. So I checked the editor's other edits and turns out all their edits were of this nature. So, it's just better to void it all out. I believe it may have been an experiment by someone to see how long it takes for misinformation to be noticed or if anyone ever bother checking legitimate looking links. Graywalls (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unrefine to Tijuca. It has mention of the Saens Peña square in the lead, and there is an image caption too. These were present even before the content was merged from the source. Regardless of the hoax origins (and thanks to the nom for detecting and fixing this), the redirect term is valid. Jay 💬 16:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrefine per Jay. J947 † edits 10:28, 17 July 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).

Wite

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 12:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the links in Henry de Bracton and the definition at wikt:wite, this word has a distinct meaning exclusive from being a misspelling for the target; even then, as a misspelling, this redirect is ambiguous since Wight exists. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as proposed above. It's not appropriate to treat this as a misspelling when someone could plausibly be searching for a different topic by its proper, correctly spelled name. The idea that the misspelling is the primary topic is not persuasive. A misspelling isn't a topic to begin with, and searching online brings up Anglo-Saxon law, the Saint, and dictionary definitions for the word (as defined at Wiktionary) so even if it were a topic I don't see any evidence for it being primary. – Scyrme (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as proposed above: there are multiple things this could refer to, and White can be in the See also section. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate yes misspellings shouldn't generally have priority. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:37, 10 July 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:CONTEST

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Wikipedia:CONTEST

Moment (time)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Moment (time)

Shafiullah Orakzai

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 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shafiullah Orakzai → Lalbazgaray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page was tagged as a CSD G6, a page made in error. But it wasn't obvious enough to me. Frankly though I don't see a connection between this page and the redirect target. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main article is now at AFD (courtesy of me) for being a potential hoax. If the article itself isn't a hoax, I'd think this redirect at the very least is, so delete.
Bit more evidence that didn't fit at the AFD: User:Lalbazgaray/sandbox entirely consists of "Shafiullah orakzai", and they have an edit in their history pointing to a youtube channel under the name Orakzai. Also, there's this revision of their user page, which states "Published by Shafiullah Orakzai". Combine that with the lack of search results for "Shafiullah Orakzai" outside of social media, as mentioned in the AFD, and I think at best this was someone creating an article under their name for a town that may or may not exist but not under that name, that got moved, and the redirect got left behind. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 July 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_8&oldid=1171517073"