Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2023.

DC Circuit

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) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggest that this be retargeted back to its original target,

WP:DIFFCAPS), and the current appeals court is the primary topic over the historical circuit court, the latter of which may be reached via a hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit per above and DIFFCAPS. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:43, 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
).

Sum 41's sixth studio album

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article;

WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for 13 Voices with "Sum 41's 6th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 19:58, 27 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 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above as harmless, currently correct (regardless of why it was initially created), and PANDORA doesn't apply in this special case. Jay 💬 05:50, 12 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
).

Linkin Park's fifth studio album

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/default to keep.
(non-admin closure) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article;

WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for Living Things (Linkin Park album) with "Linkin Park's 5th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:24, 27 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 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947's link. People don't go about adding random wikipedia links to blogs and discussion forums, but this is one case where this link was being discussed in a forum, and it's still around after a decade, regardless of whether anyone goes through those discussions. Jay 💬 15:03, 15 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
).

Capital of Switzerland

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. I'll note that Key of G Minor's arguments have been ignored as a blocked sock. -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Capital of Switzerland isn't exclusively Bern, Bern is the administrative capital, whereas Lausanne is the judicial capital. I propose either deleting it or disambiguating it. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, in cases where the judiciary happens to be located elsewhere—the connotation of "capital", in its ordinary sense, is the place out of which the government, the political entity are run. The judiciary doesn't run the government. Though some countries appear to have dubbed a separate place where their judiciary is based as the "judiciary capital" (I'm assuming—or has the naming of Pretoria as South Africa's "judiciary capital" never been more than a popular designation?), it really isn't a capital. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 27 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 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Presidentman, and rcat the redirect with an appropriate tag, I cannot decide which. Hatnoting is optional for the reason I'm not able to imagine what it will say. Federal city is already linked at the first sentence of the target. The information about capitals is not really conspicuous at Switzerland#Federal City, so I would agree with the astonishment. Disambiguation is a NO because there is nothing at Lausanne of it being a judicial capital. Jay 💬 15:39, 15 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
).

Run Wild

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 disambiguate. I have made a disambiguation page at the target using Jay's suggestions.
(non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"Run Wild" is the name of some random obscure song off of this 1980s album. This should either be a DAB page as their are a few songs and albums with this title. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherrell410: Since you're the one who proposed it, maybe you should make it into a disambiguation page...? Also, calling a song off an album that sold 12 million copies worldwide "random [and] obscure" is a bit funny. Ss112 07:42, 5 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
).

Tia Lorentzen

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 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention; I'm unable to determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 23 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 21:16, 4 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
).

OneRepublic's second album

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this exist? I clicked on this thinking that it was some onerepublic lore, but no, it's some dumb redirect. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:14, 4 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
).

Black Table

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 💬 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Table

There is no use of Black Table in Table Mountain, the target of this redirect, only of Back Table. This redirect has only been viewed 11 times in the first half of 2023. There is a draft, Draft:Black Table in review, concerning a novel, that is, an unrelated topic. The novel draft is not ready for article space, but might be ready for article space in the near future, and review has called attention to this useless redirect. The alternative to deleting this redirect when the novel is accepted would be including a hatnote in the article about the novel, but that would be a link to a misspelled version of the name of the geographic feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 4 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
).

Anisochromis straussi

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 💬 11:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect (referring to a species of fish, which is listed on Anisochromis) is almost unrelated to the target. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:53, 4 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
).

Digmaan

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 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible

WP:RLOTE from Tagalog, not mentioned in target. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 07:11, 4 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
).

Male unemployment

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 Unemployment#Gender and age. This is consistent with the "refine" !votes that suggested pointing to an anchor that now corresponds to this section heading. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not specifically mentioned in the target article in a way where redirects such as these would be considered incredibly helpful; readers may be searching around the article looking for specific information about the subject to a point where they might just give up. In addition, the linked section does not exist. Of all these redirects, Male unemployment is a {{R from merge}}, but the only location in the target article where it is clear content has been merged is at Unemployment#21st century, But even then, the reader has to go about halfway through the section to find any of the merged content ... And even then, that portion of contact is not specifically for the subjects of these redirects. I understand that there's probably going to be a push to retain the Murch material for attribution purposes, but as redirects, these redirects are not necessarily helpful search terms. All in all, as search terms, the redirects should all be deleted; however, the edit history in Male unemployment may need to be moved elsewhere to a title that's a reasonable search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: This subject is specifically mentioned in this section of the target article. Should the redirects be retargeted to that section? Jarble (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the comments to refine tend weakish, the number of redirects under discussion that refer to slightly different topics, and how information on gendered unemployment can be found throughout the article, I think this merits an opportunity for some strengthening of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:35, 4 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
).

Wikipedia:NO!

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 Wikipedia:NO. ✗plicit 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why someone would go to WP:NO (which is in fact a disambiguation page) to find the Norway wikiproject; it's the country code for Norway. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would visit this redirect. Page info says only one person — probably me — has visited this redirect in the past 30 days, while WP:NO has had 45 people visit it within the past 30 days. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 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
).

Personal leave

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Personal leave

Strich

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 disambiguate.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Not explained at target. Maybe intended as a misspelling of

Stritch, which is explained there, but that hardly seems helpful. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 4 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
).

2000 Senior Bowl

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 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – these redirects are misleading and don't serve a beneficial navigational purpose. They all go back to the

SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:39, 4 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_4&oldid=1166816665"