Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2022.

Do Men gossip more than Women

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct is nonsense and possibly sexist. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak redirect to § In psychology, or delete per nom and because that is a very unlikely search term, and not answered at target. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a question, not a topic.Wiki-psyc (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is not nonsense (it's very clear what someone using it is looking for) and whether it is sexist or not is irrelevant (per
    WP:RNEUTRAL), but someone looking for information on this topic will not find anything relevant at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia that I've found. The title of a couple of references used in articles that are extremely tangentially related to this term suggest that there is probably scope for a section discussing gender differences in gossiping behaviour and/or stereotypes and this title would not be an inappropriate redirect to that, but as it stands there is no suitable target that exists. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per Thryduulf. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. The redirect speaks for itself. XtraJovial (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

One Minute Closer to Death

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#One Minute Closer to Death

Mossy Land

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Mossy Land

Super swamper

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a quick google seems to find a bunch of tires? That isn't notable, and seemingly nothing at target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. My first thought was that this was the name of a water pistol, but on investigation I think I'm misremembering the Super Soaker. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no remorse. Review of the user's edit history on the day they created the article indicates the term likely relates to Batman. The Batmobile from Christopher Nolan's Batman films—aka “The Tumbler” uses super-swamper tires.Paleorthid (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Schwingmoor & Swingmoor

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/resolved per
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The redirects are not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target unclear. (Due to their similar spelling, I am assuming that whatever subject these redirects refer is the same.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quaking bog para ought to mention these terms, which mean the same thing. I've added them in. Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guido Fawkes (blogger)

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
(non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Technically, the blogger is Paul Staines, who uses the penname "Guido Fawkes" both for his blog (Guido Fawkes) and himself. Not sure how best to deal with this; probably best just to delete this as a redirect. AFreshStart (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Paul Staines. If someone is using this search term they are most likely wanting to read about the person behind the blog, not about the blog itself. A hatnote to the blog can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Thryduulf QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget I’m confident that someone typing Guido Fawkes (blogger) is looking for the person not the website where they post to.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

שרעק

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 שרעק, Delete the remainder.. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Hebrew versions have no relevance to targets, per

WP:RLOTE. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Functional dissonance

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Functional dissonance

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival

Equimolar

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 Glossary of chemistry terms#equimolar. Jay (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at target; is a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:equimolar a better alternative? 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 13:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lawn bowls at the Summer Paralympics

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 keep. Not a redirect anymore; hence this discussion is moot
(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:ParalympicSports. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Edit: Withdrawn, Thanks to fast page creation by SFB. CLalgo (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No content about this at the target, and misleading as well per nom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting valid redirects to provoke others to undertake some editing work doesn't feel like a particularly helpful mode, but I suppose it has worked. Consider me provoked SFB 22:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SFB: Wow. That is the fastest I've ever seen that happen. Proposal withdrawn. CLalgo (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nasty Party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Nasty Party

Follow the white rabbit

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. With no prejudice to a disambiguation page being created. Jay (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "follow the white rabbit" is used a lot in conspiracy-theory discourse (e.g. QAnon/Pizzagate), and it is not clear this would be the primary topic for someone searching for the uncapitalised version of this phrase. To avoid confusion, IMO, this should either be made into a disambig page, or deleted. AFreshStart (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A disambiguation page with what? Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel the redirect should be DABIfied with White Rabbit and the Follow the White Rabbit episode. The capitalised current target should link to the DAB. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote something like {{For|the fictional character followed by Alice|White Rabbit}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Amstelodami

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 12:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Correct Latin name for Amsterdam is Amstelodamum. Amstelodami is an adjective. Of course, Amstelodami is the Genitive and Locative of Amstelodamum. Thesmp (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion; this seems to be just the genitive of the name. No opinion if it should be kept, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We should always delete redirects that aren't in nominative case (for inflectional languages) or aren't the stem (for agglutinative languages), but explaining why is a bit tricky since English is neither. Translating Amstelodami as Amsterdam is flat-out wrong, because it's the genitive and locative form. The correct translation for genitive is Amsterdam's, and for locative is in Amsterdam. If someone created the redirects Amsterdam's and in Amsterdam and redirected it to Amsterdam, there is little doubt in my mind that both redirects would be deleted. The Latin equivalents should be deleted too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a point that people unfamiliar with the language are not unlikely to enter an inflected form they saw somewhere, and as such redirects like this would serve a similar purpose as the usual redirects from other languages. Leaning delete though. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 23:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oiyarbepsy Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Set out

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 12:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

HoWard Taft

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#HoWard Taft

HoWard TaFt

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 (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm usually supportive of redirects with non-standard capitalization, this one takes it a little too far into implausability, as there's nothing logical or systematic about this set of capitalization errors at all. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed there is no reason to beleieve someone would think his name is spelled HoWard. Remove this redirect.Nerguy (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This redirect Was created Well aFter the CamelCase era, and it just seems to be collecting dust in the search bar other than the sparse uses. Regards, SONIC678 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but if kept, this would beg for the creation of an {{R from SpongeBob capitalisation}}. TartarTorte 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Wikipedia it's called
      StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nguyen Ngọc Tho

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. Not much of an agreement after two relists, and I'm not sure if a third relist would be particularly fruitful.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I know redirects are

Nguyen Ngoc Tho is a redirect that works perfectly well. I recommend delete. TartarTorte 20:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, gets non-negligible pageviews. And that's enough. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a majority of the page views over the past 365 days (12-of-16) have been since the RfD nom. I think some of the earlier use was that Nguyen Ngoc Tho was not created until 2014 whereas this has existed since 2007 so the data dating back to 2014 could start to lean towards Nguyen Ngọc Tho for that time period. TartarTorte — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 24 February 2022‎
    • This is why the stats link at the top of all nominations is configured to show the period ending the day before nomination. However, the page view tool is currently broken for me so I can't see what the actually relevant figures are. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This got 5 page views in the last year, which is basically noise levels of usage. As a title with partly missing diacritics I don't think it's a plausible search term. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keepish. WP:CHEAP, as nom said, and there are at least a few pageviews per year. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 192.76.8 - page views are essentially negligible, and this redirect would only help searchers that somehow are able to type ọ but not any of the other diacritics. eviolite (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Connection Tour 07

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Connection Tour 07

🔴

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
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems a little weird to me that we're assuming that people who specifically write in 🔴 want to go "Circle"—seems much more likely that if they're gonna take the time to copy and paste the unicode emoji, they'd want to be navigated to

The Color Red. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment If you cannot see this emoji, it is a large red circle the same size as other emojis. On some platforms, it has a glossy specularity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice. This character is U+1F534 "LARGE RED CIRCLE", the similar characters 🟠 🟡 🟢 🟣 🟤 🔵 🔶 🔷 🔸 🔹 🔺 🔻 🟥 🟦 🟧 🟨 🟩 🟪 🟫 all redirect to Circle, Rhombus, Triangle or Square as appropriate to their shape and this one should not be singled out from the set. All individual unicode code points that have a defined meaning are plausible search terms and should lead to somewhere. In this case I don't see any reason why that somewhere should not be the article about the shape, but if others prefer the colour or some other target then the set should be discussed as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - no opinion on Circle vs e.g. Red, but changing it to the color would require a discussion involving all of the other ones pointed out above. Although the song in question apparently has been illustrated as a red dot on some versions of the CD, it doesn't look like there's an official name, and the album predates emoji's inclusion in Unicode anyway (so the dot isn't specifically the emoji.) eviolite (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Circle. feminist (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to
casualdejekyll 01:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no objection to this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Department of public services

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 Public Service Commission. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that there are many other, more prominent departments along the lines of public services other than this random "now-defunct Department of Public Services" —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 07:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to
    chatter) 20:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for consensus given that there's clear dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page thryduulf linked is now an SIA. Pinging @
Mrschimpf: who participated before it was relisted twice with no discussion to let you know that that was changed. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, that page now matches what I want in a target for this redirect so my recommendation to retarget to Public Service Commission stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this an 'aye' in regards to the retargeting; that now makes much more sense. Vote! so changed.
chatter) 20:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm fine with a SIA. --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Future Event List

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Future Event List

Wikipedia:AW

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
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Should this redirect to Article Wizard, like

WP:aw? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:AW which has been around for 15 years and has a few dozen links. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Bundled. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_2&oldid=1076415740"