Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29: Difference between revisions

March 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2023.

Outline of Palestine (disambiguation)

• Outline of Palestine (disambiguation) → Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Formerly led to Outline of Palestine (moved to Outline of Modern Palestine with its history), which was a disambiguation between what is now Outline of Israel and Outline of the State of Palestine, the latter being the current target of Outline of Palestine.
No such DAB page seems to exist anymore, and the current target isn't useful, so this is likely an uncontroversial deletion. Currently leads to

• 2010 Keswick coach accident → Keswick School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not notable Chikn Nuggit (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This request was made by a new account 12 minutes after it became active, four days after creation. Please compare the recent edit history of the redirect, which caused me to protect it. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U-Stor-It

• U-Stor-It → Snow Crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, not sure of what the connection is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or expand into its own article about the storage company. Note that the redirect was created with the message the term U-Stor-It featured prominently in the novel Snow Crash, alternatively, there's an actual company as well ustorit.com if someone wants to create an article for that which is insufficient as, for example, tables are featured prominently in novels.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big'uns

• Big'uns → Al Bundy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has a minor mention as the (parody) magazine at the target which is of a fictional character. An external search associates the magazine more with multiple characters of the sitcom Married... with Children, than with a single character. The sitcom article also has a mention, but as the BigUns magazine. The magazine name in the sitcom is shown as BIG 'UNS [1]

At a recently closed RfD -

• Keep. This is ambiguous with
  Big 'Uns which leads to substantive information at Dayna Danger. I suggest a hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Shhhnotsoloud: Why would the current target, which is one character of the sitcom, be better than Married... with Children? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per
  WP:CHEAP. If the redirect cannot be kept, it should be retargeted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Jax 0677: Retargeted to where? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Life

• Star Life → Disney Star  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Star Life can be also refer to Latin American TV channel John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion because I can decide if I can either keep the redirection or disambiguate it. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is mentioned in the target and has a clear hatnote referring the reader to the other reference. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Softlavender. Hatnote already solves this ambiguity. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @John123521: What is your expectation? Jay 💬 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was considering disambiguate the article but I can’t decide. Will close this discussion because I had done hat notes myself. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you were considering disambiguation, then your nomination had to imply that

  WP:PTOPIC. Jay 💬 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  had add some additional information now. Thanks! John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are referring to this edit where you replaced the link of Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific with a link to Star China Media, how is it relevant to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between Disney Star, Star Life (Latin American TV channel), and Star (Disney+) in lack of evidence of a primary topic. All three topics are international distribution channels owned by Disney and either defunct or officially under a different name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between
  Life cycle of a star (a star's life) and the two entertainment properties; add a see also for Star of Life, Lifestar, Star for Life -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Disambig per 65.92.244.151, the life cycle of a star was my first thought but entertainment uses are equally prominent in search results so there is on primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to
  Star Life (Latin America)) or Star Life (African TV channel) (consistent with Star Life (Latin American TV channel)), to separate out the history, since the page has been about the African channel from its very first edit in 2019. A new disambig page can be made at Star Life or Star life per IP65. Jay 💬 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First President of the United States

• First President of the United States → George Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retarget to Presidency of George Washington.

Reason: while readers might be interested in George Washington, I think the title is more related to his presidency. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, people looking/searching for "First President of the United States" would probaby expect to be directed to the biographical article on the person. Drdpw (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drpdw. "President" here refers to a person, which in this case, we obviously have an article on. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Drpdw. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRussian invasion of Ukraine

• PRussian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading, as

Whilst this might be a typo, yes it seems odd. I agree this needs deleting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible typo, completely changes the meaning. Unless there's a relevant diambig it could direct to instead that involves conflicts between Prussia and Ukrainian entities. — Czello 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it implausible? @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"P" and "R" are not near each other on a standard keyboard. — Czello 16:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The meaning is different when referring to Prussian vs Russia. The capitalization would of "PR" would also make it unnecessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I suggested R3 on the article's talk page to save editor time, but since we're here now, let's just handle it here. There is the obvious issue that Prussia is a historical entity and thus should not be confused with Russia. There is further the implausibility of Prussia arising as a simple typo in place of Russia as the r key and the p key are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard layout. I suppose now's my chance to say that we don't need to create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects to address every possible typo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See my other comments @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. There is no article called "Prussian invasion of Ukraine". It is a plausible typo of someone accidently hitting the p key. With an article with a total 50 million views (including redirects), probably hundreds have made this typo. Also, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I doubt anyone who types PRussian invasion of Ukraine by accident means to go anywhere but the Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. @Hey man im josh @Mvqr @Czello @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that plausible given the positions of the keys on the keyboard? Should we have "ERussian invasion of Ukraine" as well if we're basing it strictly on keys accidently being hit? Even if it were, I'd still vote delete based on the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization is more likely than not @Hey man im josh I do agree that ERussian Invasion of UKraine should be a redirect @Hey man im josh Starship 24 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Why is the typo plausible (when the P and R keys are not near each other on the keyboard)? Why not have a LRussian Invasion of Ukraine, or ORussian Invasion of Ukraine, or MRussian Invasion of Ukraine? — Czello 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those should all exist too. @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship 24: By this logic, every article should have enough redirects to include every possible typo (letters, numbers, and symbols) at the start of the title. Hell, why stop there? We could also have a typo in every space between letters, too. — Czello 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible typo and potentially misleading given the history of Prussia. -
  Talkback) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is no article called Prussian invasion of Ukraine @Presidentman Starship 24 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Whether a DAB or redirect for
  WP:CHEAP as it's an ambiguous and relatively unlikely typo in my view. TartarTorte 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What confusion with Prussia is there. Being that there is no prussian invasion of ukraine, i see no confusion @TartarTorte Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone typing it might think "there was one?" go there and think "but this is not about Prussia", as has been said it's hard to see how this is a genuine type, as neither R P or U are that near each other, which means that they must be looking for Prussia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had thought that in the Seven Years' War Prussia fought a battle in Ukraine, but I cannot find that in the evidence, so it's seemingly not ambiguous. Striking my vote. TartarTorte 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've speedy deleted the redirect as pure ptrolling from psomebody too fond of pattention, and will warn the creator. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Shah Reza Pahlavi

• Shah Reza Pahlavi → Mohammad Reza Pahlavi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to

• Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

0 page views most years, most views likely accidental search hits. Clutters WP namespace, title improper. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kv bhu

• Kv bhu → Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target page. Could be a short form of KV Bhutan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand I of Spain

• Ferdinand I of Spain → Ferdinand II of Aragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be a disambiguation between

• Primus sucks → Primus (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proposed a discussion. You have proposed a deletion. Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand. Again: what are you trying to accomplish? Please be specific. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, obviously. That's not an especially helpful remark. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked.

The redirect has been proposed for deletion. By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks a bit like

talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [2] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable.

I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable.

talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have no idea what you're talking about ("the redirect disparages the band"). It's not subjective. G10 has no relevance to this redirect. The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on "<X> sucks" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X.

Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a term of endearment by fans encouraged by the band: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/does-primus-really-suck-249254/ Primus bassist, vocalist and all-around figurehead Les Claypool explains that in the band’s early days, “We’d just get up there and say, ‘We’re Primus, and we suck.’ And it kind of caught on.” The band helped it along with PRIMUS SUCKS T-shirts adorned with various things that suck, such as a vacuum cleaner or a baby with a bottle. “I think it’s the greatest thing, myself,” says Claypool. It probably should be mentioned in the article but that isn't a hard and fast rule if it's a commonly enough related to the target, which this is. Skynxnex (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on Skynxnex's comment. Would however definitely prefer that it be mentioned in the article so people don't get the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:V as well as being something that exists outside of purely self-promotion. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider the strain on contributor resources that initiating such a process will entail in the event that the proposal should fail? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort check usage of the term(s) in a search engine such as Google? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect and leaving a notice on the article talk page, make a reasonable effort to look for the term(s) or a discussion of the redirect on that talk page? And if so, did you attempt to participate in that discussion? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort to check Special:Log for this redirect and include that in your consideration to proceed and/or include those findings and your rationale in the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable (but not necessarily exhaustive) effort to check if the term(s) might have once appeared in the article? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider some other time- and effort-saving alternative, such as asking someone informally about its existence (e.g. the person who created the redirect or some other interested or knowledgeable party)? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, verify that you are able to clearly articulate, if not to others then at least to yourself, the benefit of deleting it? (Please answer yes or no.)
• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider whether you would be able and/or willing to be responsive and participate in the discussion for the proposal in the event of an issue with the proposal, such as something that is unclear in the stated reasons or in the event of questions by others in response to the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)

Thanks. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owes you an answer to these. This appears to be a good faith nomination and the reason for nomination is obvious. I think you're taking this way too personally and need to relax. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the nom would really read through your

talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Re "while you accuse the nom of all those stuff": What are you talking about? I can kind of make out that you're making some assumptions here (and what those assumptions are) based on your comment (but not entirely)—it's like someone's intercepting messages or something, tweaking them, and forwarding them to you; only that's not what's happening: instead you're responding to some perceived but inaccurate subtext in what you're reading. Can you please stick to the discussion as it actually exists, rather than trying to read between the lines? The words I wrote are the ones I meant to write. If I meant something else, I would have written that. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Pahlavi

• Shah Pahlavi → Reza Shah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose we disambiguate this redirect because in addition to

• Sounds good to me. Nv8200pa talk 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support disambiguation - It could even be reasonable to redirect to the younger shah, considering he is often simply known as "the Shah" and by far a primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pahlavi dynasty#Heads of House of Pahlavi: Both of the Pahlavis to hold the title Shah are listed with some context TartarTorte 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]