Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13

March 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 13, 2023.

"(Raimi-Verse)" as a disambiguator

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/refine. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Raimi-Verse" doesn't exist, leaving no expectation that this redirect is either helpful or plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete all, or retarget and refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 23:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget and refine per Pizzaplayer, who has provided evidence that these are useful to readers. It doesn't matter how many readers find them useful, only that their usefulness outweighs any problems their existence causes. Given that their existence doesn't cause any problems, there is absolutely no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. MClay1 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and refine per above. Commonly used term to refer to the subset of films. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 12:57, 16 March 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).

Human Shit

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. Human shit was also created by Mclay1. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this vulgarity is used to describe feces, but when describing human feces itself, we usually do not say it like that. Also, this page under another capitalization, Human shit, is already deleted, so I'm suggesting a deletion of this too. The page is currently fully protected so I'm not able to add a RfD template. Since the reason of its protection was because of persistent vandalism, I'm also suggesting a salting too to prevent recreation by vandals. Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: The history on all of this is an absolute doozy. It seems like Human shit was deleted because someone moved Human feces to there and it was moved back, but the redirect was left over then deleted, but seemingly not with prejudice as to the appropriateness of the redirect. It was determined that this redirect, Human Shit target Human feces after a set of AfDs on Human Shit and Human Shit (band) located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit (band) which resulted in the deletion of Human Shit (band) and the aforementioned targeting of Human feces from Human Shit. With all of that put aside, because the page is already fully protected, it's unlikely to cause further vandalism and the target itself is unambiguous from my view, even if the term is a bit crass. TartarTorte 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and create Human shit). The target is clearly correct and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I don't understand the nomination. Are you saying the phrase "human shit" is used to described faeces but not human faeces? I very much dispute the assertion that "we usually do not say it like that". The phrase is clearly correct (apart from the capital S) and so the redirect is valid. Unless there's a discussion I don't know about, Human shit should not have been deleted and should be recreated. MClay1 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This should likely only be closed by an admin even if it is a keep or retarget as the page is fully protected, so a non-admin would not be able to remove the RfD template. TartarTorte 15:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: because the page was fully protected, the RfD template was added on 14 March 2023 at 15:07 UTC. TartarTorte 21:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant, as it was reduced it from fully-protected to semi-protected, as noted below by Thryduulf. TartarTorte 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term: yes, that's not how the phrase you'd use in most everyday situations (the qualifier "human" isn't necessary most of the time), but that's exactly how you would search for the topic in an encyclopedia if you expect there to be a separate article about human feces (which there is). Redirects don't have to use the proper, or nice, words (WP:RNEUTRAL). Could we lower the protection, though? I'm sure full protection made sense when it was instated by Dweller in 2009, but I don't see why it would still be needed now. For comparison, human shit has never had any protection (which means any autoconfirmed user would be able to create it), and despite this, it hasn't seen any problems since 2006. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No big comment about the decision here, other than it's odd to have this but not the lower case version. Maybe consider delete/salting this and establishing Human shit instead, which would be found by the same search. On protection, we wouldn't perma protect these days on such flimsy grounds. I suggest it be changed to a lower level of protection, but that remain permanent, but I'm also open to persuasion. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that low permanent protection will still be needed. Judging by the lower-case title, semi protection should be enough, no? – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go with extended-protection since people can be immature sometimes, and there had to have been a good reason why this was fully protected in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've boldly reduced the protection level to semi-protection, but do feel free to up it to ECP if it proves necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:CHEAP and a plausible search term. Probably recreate Human shit too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep {{R from search term}} a very likely search term and WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- This just seems like censorship (sanitize Wikipedia because it is impolite), or classism (make sure the undereducated or non-native English speakers can't find the topic they want). And create the uncapitalized form as a {{R from alternate name}} since it is missing, and the capitalized form will serve until the uncapitalized one is created. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 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).

Template:Prose timeline

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Template:Prose timeline

Pulau Laut

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Pulau Laut

Humanities and Social Sciences

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#Humanities and Social Sciences

Centiday

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Centiday

Alexander of Macedonia

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 Alexander the Great is the primary topic. Participants agreed on these two actions to clarify the primary topic:

It is important to note that consensus can emerge at any venue; as such, no requested move was needed for these changes. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget/Disambiguate to Alexander of Macedon, or redirect both to Alexander the Great and make disambiguation Alexander of Macedon (disambiguation) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 21:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Alexander the Great and make disambiguation Alexander of Macedon (disambiguation), as Alexander the Great is definitely the primary topic. Furius (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Alexander of Macedon. There are plenty of them that need disambiguating. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 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).

Roman ethnographers

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 21:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See previous RfDs for Greek ethnographers and Greco-Roman ethnography: ethnography has nothing to do with geography and so the redirects are misleading. The first was closed as delete, while the latter is still ongoing. Greek ethnographer already had a notice dated at the first-linked RfD, while it wasn't actually listed among the redirects for discussion on that topic, with Greek ethnographers being listed twice instead. This means WP:G4 does not apply. Randi Moth (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the other RfDs. Note that the latter also closed a Delete. Jay 💬 04:26, 21 March 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).

White Point (Victoria), Nova Scotia

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 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • White Point (Victoria), Nova Scotia → Aspy Bay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should've been bundled in together with the rest of White Points, but I think that discussion has been listed for too long for bundling more to be acceptable. A {{R from move}} that has been the name of the BLAR'd article for a few hours, with the malformed disambiguation meaning it's an unlikely search term. Randi Moth (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the other RfD. Jay 💬 04:21, 21 March 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).

White Point Bridge

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 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be an actual name for the bridge. Searching the name up in relation to the mid-bay bridge or just searching for "White Point Bridge", I can only find that the bridge is located next to the White Point road, where an administration office for the bridge exists. I cannot find any proof that the bridge is referred to by that name and it is not mentioned on the target article. Randi Moth (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jay 💬 04:19, 21 March 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 talk:Amigao

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 Talk:Amigão. User talk page moved back to User talk:Amigao. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith redirect Amigao (talk) 17:35, 13 March 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).

Specific redirects to Multivitamin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Specific redirects to Multivitamin

Tanner binion

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 💬 04:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, appears to have some connection to an editor who moved it the article to this name, then moved it to a different name, creating this redirect. Onel5969 TT me 16:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Google search returns no results and this appears to be a name of a person. EpicPupper (talk) 21:30, 20 March 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).

Makad Jaala - A Political Trap

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. Salvio giuliano 08:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makad Jaala - A Political Trap → Social film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the title of a film which isn't mentioned at the target, nor on any other article [4]. Note that the shorter title "Makad Jaala" was deleted as a totally implausible redirect. Someone entering this title will be sent to a page which doesn't have any information on the film, so delete. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:41, 13 March 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).

Monika Willi

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. (non-admin closure) Nardog (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Willi has dozens of credits to her name. The redirect is unhelpful and confusing. Nardog (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mightn't that REDIRECT just be a mistaken leftover from the page's 1st iteration? I suggest to simply remove the #REDIRECT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was turned into an article after this nomination was made. I'll withdraw it if/once Οἶδα removes {{Work in progress}}, with the caveat that I strongly, strongly discourage this kind of redirecting red links to articles with only loose association just for the sake of making them blue as it is reader-hostile and is a frequent cause of circular links. Nardog (talk) 05:58, 13 March 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).

Attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler

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 20 July plot. Out of the events in the list, the 20 July 1944 one is the only one with an article linked. I do not find J947's arguments particularly aligned with redirect norms. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 20 July plot as a wp:primary redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom then add hatnote pointing to List of assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. --Lenticel (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – two things. Please don't rename redirects. Just create a new one. It obfuscates page history, and each redirect is one specific term not covering any spelling variants. Secondly, best to notify Rosguill, who changed the target of the redirect to the current one. J947 † edits 21:23, 15 March 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_March_13&oldid=1146444744"