Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9

July 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2023.

Template:Max/2

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 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unused set of template redirects from the days of pre-modularization. They should have been deleted back when it was made into a module. SWinxy (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is standard cleanup at TfD after converting a template to a module (or to not needing sub-pages). Gonnym (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 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).

Beto Vazquez Infinity

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 wrong venue. @Neo139:, Randi Moth is correct. Good luck with fixing this. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 11:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete this redirect in order to move (preserving history) Beto Vázquez Infinity (with á) to here (without á). I made the move (from a->á) long time ago, but I was wrong. Looking forward to fix this. Neo139 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue – The requested moves venue is intended for this purpose, and people there would be more experienced in this. Place a technical request if you expect it to be non-controversial, otherwise, start a requested move. Randi🦋TalkContribs 20:35, 9 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).

Minister of Helth

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 Minister for Helth to Doug Everingham with no consensus on the other redirects, without prejudice against immediate renomination. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 18:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a boatload of health ministers, and typing this exact misspelling results in many correctly-spelled results. No incoming links. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • See article: From 1972 to 1975 under Doug Everingham, the Ministry was named the "Ministry of Helth [sic]" in some informal contexts due to Everingham's support of Spelling Reform. I wouldn't object to refining to the History section, where that quote is found, but if so you should bundle Minister for Helth and Ministry of Helth. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like in that case it should be retargeted to Doug Everingham, since it does not appear to have survived him or the SR1 reform proposal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd add that this minor detail is probably more stable at Doug Everingham than at Minister for Health and Aged Care; since the latter is an office that still exists, its article is more subject to revision. I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence gets pruned from the article in the future as its relevance diminishes with time. The detail will, however, always remain relevant to Doug Everingham. 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) – Scyrme (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Health minister as {{R from misspelling}} and add a hatnote to this article. Most users will probably not necessarily be looking for the Australian minister. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: This comment was before the bundling occurred, but my comment stands for the newly added ones as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman: Can you clarify on your reference of "this article"? Is it the current target or the Australian minister? Jay 💬 06:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Current target Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minister for Helth and add hatnote at target to Health minister and Ministry of Health. A correct use (albeit as an incorrect/former name) should take precedence over a misspelling. Ministry of Helth also redirects to the same target, and analogously should have a hatnote to Ministry of Health. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So digging into the refs for this in the article, it looks like the actual term was "Minister for Helth", which makes sense given the use of "for" in the current name. So I would be inclined to target this version using "of" to Health minister as a misspelling of Minister of Health (an avoided double redirect), perhaps with a hatnote to the current target, but that should only be done if Ministry of Helth is handled similarly (retargeted to Ministry of Health), and it seems too late to bundle here. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been less than 24 hours, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think bundling is too late. Minister for Helth is also relevant. – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Minister of Helth to Health minister and retarget Ministry of Helth to Ministry of Health. Now that everything is before us here, I think the version using "for" should be kept and the versions using "of" should be targeted to the broader targets as misspellings per my comments above. Note that Ministry for Helth doesn't exist, or for that matter, neither does Ministry for Health, but perhaps these should. I oppose retargeting to Doug Everingham at the moment because the only use of "Helth" on that article is "Department of Helth", not using the term with minister or ministry. Perhaps if the text there can been expanded to use the terms of these redirects, with the references updated, then retargeting there could be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to (the relevant section of) Doug Everingham per above discussion; a niche failed attempt at spelling reform (a feat only Noah Webster and maybe Samuel Johnson could pull off) should be targeted towards the main user, and as I said in the OP no typist will reasonably use this quirky spelling for its intended purpose. As for the "Ministry of Helth", I would probably also retarget that to Everingham for the same reason. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've nominated the other two mentioned earlier. I'd appreciate help bundling them. – Scyrme (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three–four-way split as it stands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reiterating my support for retargeting to Doug Everingham; I've copypasted the citations from the ministry article to Everingham's own article, and now the latter has (slightly) more information on the topic. Continuing to target to the Health Department as a whole gives the impression that Australians still spell it the "Helth Minister", which does not appear the case from what I can see. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 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 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Minister for Helth to Doug Everingham; retarget the others using 'of' per my previous comments above. I have updated the text at Doug Everingham with a cited use of "Minister for Helth" so now I agree that is the best place for it. However, the versions using "of" are not used in any sources, so are best taken as misspellings of the more general terms, and should be retargeted as such. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:01, 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).

Combat jujitsu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Combat jujitsu

Pier 27 (San Francisco)

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 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not interchangeable redirects. Unnecessary WP:SURPRISE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't fully understand the nomination statement, but in any case delete as not being mentioned in that section, and only being mentioned once in conjunction with pier 29, so unlikely to be of any value. I think if mention could be added to the current section (if the pier was of importance) then it would be a reasonable redirect as it seems unlikely someone searching this would be looking for something else. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 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).

Umar Vadillo

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 05:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Vadillo (2nd nomination), the subject is not now mentioned at the target and the redirect is therefore confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 9 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).

Battle of Saragarhi (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. Content on the film has been added to the target. Will also refine to the anchor (Rajkumar Santoshi#Battle of Saragarhi). (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of film at target Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add mention at target. The page has been getting lot of views, so readers are interested. The page has history and I have just tagged the redirect as such. Note that Battle of Saragarhi (Movie) is a former title of the page and may be bundled as well. It does appear that Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't shelved the film, and the page may even be restored to the standalone article, if the film notability criteria is met.[1][2][3][4][5]. Jay 💬 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No mention. I don't think these kinds of redirects are useful even if there was a mention, unless there is some information about the film. A7V2 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Rajkumar Santoshi § Battle of Saragarhi. I added a note mentioning the project. The other redirect should obviously follow suit. Paradoctor (talk) 11:41, 14 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).

Swipe left

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 soft redirect to wiktionary. Jay 💬 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pointing device gesture, where general usage is described, unless anyone could propose a better target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The terms swiping left or right go beyond just Tinder and applies to several dating apps or colloquial language more generally. But I didn't see the terms mentioned at Dating app, Online dating or Swipe in any real detail. Maybe it's best to delete these to not center Tinder from more general terms. I'm not happy with the proposed retarget as "swipe" is not explicitly mentioned at the article, and it loses any association with dating apps which I suspect would be the connection people would be searching for. ― Synpath 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason why someone couldn't just add it to the article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "swipe" to Pointing device gesture? Yes, probably should be there already, and I should have been more careful with my wording. Adding "swipe + direction" as relevant to dating apps there is likely not warranted. ― Synpath 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to the respective existing Wiktionary entries. I came here looking up "swipe right" to make sure I got the meaning right. (I didn't.) I'm not aware of any other significant idiomatic use of these terms.
Paradoctor (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft-Retarget to Wikitionary - I firmly oppose retargeting to Pointing device gesture, as this is too broad for what these phrases plainly mean. Tinder actually isn't actually a bad target for the term, because the usage originated from tinder specifically... however, I understand that the term has actually grown more general than its origin, and works both with dating apps in general and as a colloquial term for approval/disapproval specifically, which is not really capturable in any of our existing articles. Lacking that, I think the wiktionary entry will suit our hypothetical searcher best... they might be looking for an article about the term, but we don't have that. However, they might have stmubled across the term in the wild and simply need to know what it means, in which case wiktionary will be the best help. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary per Paradoctor and Fieari. (Targets would be wiktionary:swipe left and wiktionary:swipe right, unless the -ing forms should target their specific pages, but those specific pages are simply "Present participle of swipe [direction]", which is already covered at swipe left/right. Not entirely sure how that's usually handled, though.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The inflected forms should point to the same targets as the non-inflected forms, tagged as {{r from avoided double redirect}}. Paradoctor (talk) 12:09, 24 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).

Muslim scholars

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 Lists of Islamic scholars. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if this targeted Lists of Islamic scholars rather than assuming that contemporary scholars are the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 9 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).

Swade

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 moot. We do, actually ({{R from surname}}), but as there are two people with this surname I've made it a set index. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 08:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally redirect from standalone surnames, IIFC. Don't see the use case for this. EEng 06:54, 9 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).

Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor

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 Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor. The redirect is already refined to the relevant section. Refine Pat Robertson's financial ties to African leaders to the same section. Delete Pat Robertson and Zionism, this one has the strongest consensus due to concerns about conflating Zionism with supporting Israel. Delete Pat Robertson and Israel. This one had a couple suggestions for doing something with it. However, neither of them gained support and I do see enough appetite for deletion otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term (the first two words would yield the same result). – bradv 23:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor is usable just as [[]] or a pipe?
Pat Robertson and Zionism is implicitly mentioned in that section. That's the section I had in mind "Pat Robertson has been a long-term friend of the state of Israel, and continues to be so.". — Invasive Spices (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor, if it had been something more along the lines of "Pat Robertson's views on Charles Taylor" I would say weak keep, but if anything on second look I'm more inclined to say delete (as opposed to weak) since there are no dealings mentioned in that section. I'm not sure what context a link would be appropriate but definitely there are countless instances where a piped link is more appropriate than creating a redirect, and this is probably one. For Pat Robertson and Zionism, I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel, they are not the same. Presidentman's suggested target is in some ways better due to it actually being about Zionism, but I think it is too brief a mention to warrant a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
his $8,000,000 (USD) investment in a Liberian gold mine ? All 3 paragraphs in the target section are about PR & CT. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really have more than the quote I copied in my comment above? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the same to be honest. But I concur with A7V2 that I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:13, 22 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 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, going to add another complex suggestion here. Refine the first two as per Presidentman above. Delete the second two - I don't see enough content in either the current target or Presidentman's retarget to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:39, 21 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).

Damaon, Diu& Silvassa

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 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here. Bastewasket (talk) 03:02, 9 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).

Union Territory of Damaon, Diu& Silvassa

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 16:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here. Bastewasket (talk) 02:51, 9 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_9&oldid=1170869818"