Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2023.

Marley

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. Nominated by a sockpuppet of English Patriot Man with no further support. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Marley should redirect to Bob Marley because there are various places with the name, a Peerage in the UK and a type of flooring with the name. The article Marley (disambiguation) shows that there's more to the name than the singer Bob Marley. The singer Bob Marley is never known just by his surname.--Abdul Akter (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It seems like the
    WP:PTOPIC for Marley is Bob Marley. Even from the DAB, which people have most likely gotten to from the hatnote on Bob Marley, 25% clickthrough to Bob Marley's page. A secondary proposal is a weak retarget to Marley (surname) as nothing else on that DAB has gotten more than 15% of the traffic. TartarTorte 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep: per above and the majority of search results relate to Bob Marley. CROIX (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. It's the clear Primary topic - Bob Marley is known world-wide, whereas the peerage is known to a much smaller group of people, and the flooring only to people in the theatre and dance world. I'm surprised that the nom didn't note "Jacob Marley" from Dickens' A Christmas Carol, who is known much more widely than either of their examples, but still not more than the performer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear primary topic for the term, the other uses are very obscure by comparison. Hut 8.5 12:58, 24 February 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
).

Kwarteng

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. The nominator is a sockpuppet, but also because this should be a move request. The action desired would be a move of
Kwarteng. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No redirect to Kwasi Kwarteng. The article Kwarteng (surname) shows that there are other people with them and I don't see any strong evidence that Kwasi Kwarteng is the primary topic for the surname internationally (in the UK, more than likely yes). Abdul Akter (talk) 23:23, 23 February 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
).

Neo-amphibia

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, not finding any evidence this is another term for mudskippers Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most promising result I found was actually this link for
Dipnoi, that is, lungfish). Wikipedia doesn't appear to have coverage of this historic classification, and I suspect most helpful sources are only available in print so adding a mention somewhere might be difficult. Regardless, this use is unhyphenated. Best to delete the hyphenated form and let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 11:44, 24 February 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
).

Airthings Masters

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Duh, I can make this dab page now. Don't know why I thought of RFD immediately.
(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Could refer to a tournament in 2021 or 2022 (Champions Chess Tour 2022#Airthings Masters). Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB: The 2022 edition of the tournament was no more notable than the 2021 instance of the tournament, so a DAB seems the most sense between the two to get people where they want to go and could possibly be expanded into an article about the tournament if the tournament itself is notable. TartarTorte 20:33, 23 February 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
).

Smash burger

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Smash burger

Template:Country data Second Republic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Template:Country data Second Republic

Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss

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 delete under
talk) 14:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

These protected pages may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because they are redirects left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title.

talk) 16:44, 23 February 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 ).

Template talk:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss

Atari VCS (2018 console)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Atari VCS (2018 console)

Communio in sacris

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 20:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The few uses of "communio in sacris" I have found ([1]; "Communion in Holy Things in the Old Testament", Alan Ludwig; [2]) do not refer to the Catholic concept. I do not know what this expression is supposed to refer to.

Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Full communion, which uses the exact phrase communio in sacris at both Full communion § Anglican Communion and Full communion § Catholic Church. Deletion would not be helpful. A number of online sources (eg. [3]) and publications (eg. [4], [5], [6], [7]) use this exact phrase in relation to Roman Catholicism. Other sources, including those found by the nominator, use it in relation to Anglicanism. Full communion is currently the best target for all these uses. – Scyrme (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept this redirect proposal as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 22:19, 23 February 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
).

Penile-vaginal intercourse

Template:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity)

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under
talk) 17:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

These protected pages may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because they are redirects left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. (

talk) 15:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: These are not eligible for R3 speedy deletion as they were not recently created. Per the reference tool tip at
WP:CSD R3, The definition of recent is intentionally flexible since some pages may receive more notice than others. Pages older than about 3–6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently recreated; pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are. These were all created (from a page move) on August 1, 2018. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's OK for
talk) 16:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:TFD to become familiar with them) and, in general, I think it is best to approach one of these editors or admins for help when you are seeking a template deletion. This is general advice, I know I advised you to come here when I thought you were just trying to delete a redirect. As for CSD G6s, opinions vary widely on when this is an appropriate criteria to use. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 07:05, 25 February 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 ).

Template talk:Editnotices/Notcensored (nudity)

Penile-penile sex

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 5#Penile-penile sex

Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church

Template:Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list

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 delete under
WP:R3 - this is clearly a typo in the title, and it will never work anyway, so I went ahead and speedied it. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it is a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title.

talk) 09:12, 23 February 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 ).

Ümlaut

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus is now overwhelmingly clear.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 15:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably delete, as while there are a few instances of this spelling online, it is incorrect, and we don't want to mislead readers into thinking otherwise. While it's a relatively old redirect, the page views are rather negligible and it will not likely be missed. If consensus is to keep, it could at the very least be soft retargeted the Wiktionary entry of this nonstandard spelling. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Umlaut (diacritic). While most users would need to go somewhat out of the way to provide the diacritic, this does suggest to me that they'd be looking for information on it. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the spirit of an R from misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 23 February 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
).

Angelic Salutation

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 15:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and re-add mention. This was given as an alternate name when the redirect was created ([8]), and is given in, for example, Britannica ([9]). A7V2 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention has been added to target, but is unsourced, and I have tagged it as {{citation needed}}. Britannica is a teritary source, so I did not use it for citing, especially in the lead of an article where the alternate name is not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Jay 💬 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added a cited reason on why the prayers is called Angelical Salutation. --Lenticel (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep particularly per the work done. Skynxnex (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Lenticel Referencer12 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 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
).

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to
(non-admin closure)LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Previously nominated for deletion here and I can't imagine anybody who would type this in all caps to get here. If it's deleted, we could add it to

‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ 00:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'm okay with Refine target as well --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refine target per @Natg 19. As FYI, it had 54 pageviews last year, per Pageviews Analysis. (Also included Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum & IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM in link for reference.) Referencer12 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 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
).