Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conservation status of Bombyx mori → Bombyx mori  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yep, it's in the infobox, and that's it. Readers looking for more information about this subject at the target article will be sadly disappointed. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Organizations that do assessments of conservation statuses don't assess domesticated species. There is never going to be any content discussing the conservation status of domesticated silk moths, and it's arguably WP:OR to even have DOM as a status in the infobox (although I suppose DOM status is somewhat useful to flag organisms that will never have an assessed status, as opposed to the thousands of organisms that don't yet have an assessed status but could have a status one day). Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As pointed out, it's domesticated, it never will have any conservation status. Dyanega (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted, a redirect implies a reasonably informative destination, not a single word. And for a domesticated species, this is like Conservation status of poodles. Largoplazo (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this redirect suggests we should open up
  WP:PANDORA such that every article about an organism should have "Conservation status of [genus] [species]" redirects, even if the conservation status is not noteworthy (as is typically the case for a domesticated animal) and/or not discussed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as it is not discussed at the target. I don't have any issue with similar redirects where the conservation status is of some importance (ie if there is a section discussing conservation/etc). A7V2 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Plantdrew --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 23 June 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

).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mexican hate group → List of Mexican-American political organizations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Found this tagged for

Only one group in the list can be reasonably labelled a "hate group", and it doesn't have an article. I also can't find any suitable target.

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as misleading. I would expect it to lead to information on hate groups in Mexico. We have no such article, nor is there any mention of Mexico in
  Hate groups, which is where the redirect could lead if there were a section there about Mexico. But Mexico has no mention in that article. Largoplazo (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as misleading --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: misleading redirect with no suitable retarget option. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misleading at best with no suitable target. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:05, 27 June 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

).

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 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drovers Run  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

This page used to be an article about Drovers Run at the time it was created, after which it was redirected to the current target by Daniel99091. I'm not sure we should still have this lying around either, since it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays since the move compared to the target and the correctly spelled Drovers (fictional farm). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Histmerge.
  WP:history merge. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support merging history as nom to fix this matter. @Paul 012: Thanks for pointing it out-I didn't really consider that option when I nominated the redirect. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Histmerge is now  Done, the relevant revisions prior to the cut-and-paste move have been merged into the history of
  Drovers Run. DanCherek (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks. I have no opinion regarding the remaining redirect. It is now effectively an r from move, which generally should be retained, but it's old and miscapitalised, so there's really no harm in deleting, now that the discussion is open. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as a historical redirect that is cheap and doesn't do much harm. I don't know if there are any incoming external links out there, but this would break them. (I'm also not convinced the target is notable, but that's a separate discussion.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now that histmerge has been done, the typo in the disambiguator makes this very unlikely. (Also, the target should not exist as a standalone page, but that is a separate discussion). —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now that histmerge has been done. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: histmerge has been completed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 23 June 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

).

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. ✗plicit 07:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gun politics in Indonesia → Overview of gun laws by nation#Indonesia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gun politics in Israel → Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gun politics in israel → Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Gun politics" is a US-centric term. The target sections only cover gun control laws, and makes no mention of gun ownership being a political issue in Indonesia or Israel. Delete as misleading/unhelpful redirects. Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC), 08:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are loads of Gun politics in Foo redirects that point various ways. They should also be examined, but I'm not doing that right now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not seeing a good reason to delete. Nominator asserts that "Gun politics" is a US-centric term. That sounds more like an ENGVAR issue than anything else, so
  Talkback) 17:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Maybe I should have said gun politics doesn't really exist outside the US. As 59.149.117.119 pointed out, they are different (if related) topics, and readers aren't served by these redirects to targets that mention nothing of the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if technically different, they seem sufficiently related enough to make these terms plausible.

    Talkback) 22:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Delete not a
  WP:ENGVAR issue. The word "politics" means the same thing in all Anglophone countries, and the target sections don't discuss politics at all (e.g. public debates, proposals by legislators for changes to existing laws, etc.). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Are laws not political? See, e.g.

  Talkback) 18:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The country subcats under that category are being proposed for deletion/merging, as the term does not reflect their contents. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, "politics of" connotes not laws as they are but to ongoing discourse and debate on laws and policies, and to activities (rallies, riots, boycotts, bombings, etc.) related thereto and their impact. For instance, every country has a law as to what side of the road people are allowed to drive on. Nevertheless, "politics of the side of the road to drive on" is pretty much an empty topic except with respect to the rare occasions when a consideration arises of switching from one side to the other. "Politics of the driving side of the road in the United States" is a non-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Middling-weak keep. At least in democracies, which both of these countries are, laws are an extension of politics. As such, these are not misleading targets, while the search terms are plausible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tamzin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 24 June 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

).

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. ✗plicit 07:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reign of Marcus → Marcus (name)#Government and military  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. ★Trekker (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at the minimum it should be re-targeted to Marcus (name)#Government since apparently the section was renamed. The most plausible retarget to me is Reign of Marcus Aurelius since Aurelius is probably the most likely person people are searching for and as far as I can find, the only article that contains "Reign of Marcus" but there are sufficient emperors and similar in the government section who would have "reigns" staying as a redirect to the disambiguation also makes sense to me. Skynxnex (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Rosguill who retargeted it as part of NPP. Weak keep as is as although the majority of readers are looking for Reign of Marcus Aurelius the targets of Marcus_(son_of_Basiliscus)#Reign_with_Basiliscus and Marcus (usurper), both of which are well-viewed articles, are actually referred to as just Marcus normally. Even though it looks like Aurelius is too, but less often. J947 † ^edits 06:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep/refine to Marcus (name)#Government. Restoring the old target and adding a hatnote could also be a feasible solution, as would "delete to make way for search results". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:14, 21 June 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

).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oceangate Tower → The Tower, Meridian Quay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unexplained redirect. Who calls this Oceangate? Schierbecker (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It's not even a real redirect, it doesn't work. "Oceangate" is never mentioned at the target page. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A quick Google search turns up nothing for Oceangate Tower aside from an unremarkable office building in Long Beach, CA.BusterTheMighty (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to @
  Meridian Tower are redirects to this article. While references regarding Oceangate and Ferrara are hard to find, if not impossible, there are quite a few regarding Meridian: Wales Online, ITV, BBC (uppercase 'Tower') BBC (lowercase 'tower'), 1, 2. I hope that clears things up. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Particularly, from article history, there is a reference to a skyscrapernews.com entry on a different skyscraper, which mentions a "Swansea's 'Oceangate' tower (107m)" which is "expected to see construction in 2006/2007". This matches up with the Meridian Quay's height and construction start period, but I don't know whether that's enough to narrow down whether this is the same building. Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that in the article history. I would say that it is likely the same building, but that there is enough wiggle room that it is fully confirmed. {{

R from alternate names}} could apply if there was concrete proof. For now, it might be best that this ends up deleted with a possible chance that the future does give a proper reference that could be used to restore this. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, I can't find anything referring to Oceangate as a name for the building (though there are several national news articles which referred to it as Ferrara Tower) so it seems to be a name that never took hold. Sionk (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Even if it was a name originally used either by the developers, commercially, or both, as @Super Goku V and @Randi Mothhave said, it obviously didn’t pan out that way. As no one in recent history has used the term “OceanGate” to refer to this specific tower, this redirect should be deleted. Wikentromere (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obscure synonym at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the two building names are likely not related and even if they there there is not enough merit for this redirect to be kept. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 23 June 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

).