Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 8, 2023.

Queen’s Slipper

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Queen’s Slipper

Mode-k flattening

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 close/no consensus. There appears to be agreement that the redirect and target titles refer to the same concept, and discussion has shifted to the question of which should be the proper article title. There isn't a clear consensus on that question here at this time, and
WP:RM is the process to use to carry out that discussion further. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

not mentioned in target Onel5969 TT me 22:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this discussion really be had as a move request rather than at RfD? Felix QW (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-3-540-43745-1
    , retrieved 2023-03-15
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
).

MK Pictures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#MK Pictures

Spiderman 5

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 6. These films were never ordered in such a way and are never referred to by these numbers either as they aren't part of one series of films, but 3 completely different film series. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 March 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
).

Hungry as fuck

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Randi Moth (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANDORA also applies: existence of this may lead to a reader expecting similar redirects, such as Poor as fuck to Extreme poverty. Randi Moth (talk) 11:07, 9 March 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
).

Student achievement

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Student achievement

A Grade

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18#A Grade

Answer key

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 💬 06:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly surprisingly, the redirect is not mentioned or identified in the target article. I'd have to imagine that would be a retargeting option for this redirect, but if not, this redirect's title probably has

WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 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
).

Placement paper

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 Placement testing. Legoktm (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 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
).

Quest (assessment)

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 soft redirect to Wikt:quest#Etymology 2. Jay 💬 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "quest" is nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 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
).

Examine

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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This verb does not have an exclusive connection to the subject of the target article. For example, this could also refer to Examination. Delete as an unsolvable ambiguous situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 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
).

Color Lines (Loop)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Color Lines (Loop)

Template:User visited Cultural Heritage

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. I

WP:BOLDly renamed this userbox template following the related stub template after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_26#Template:Cultural-Heritage-stub. – Fayenatic London 17:38, 8 March 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
).

Rogue Squadron (upcoming film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Rogue Squadron (upcoming film)

C4H10O8

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 💬 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources Oosporein is C14H10O8 instead of C4H10O8. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 8 March 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
).

Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The capital letters make this redirect unhelpful. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 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
).

Marriage, Moral and Canonical Aspect of

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The capital letters as well as the wording make this redirect unhelpful. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 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
).

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, too long to meaningfully save search time.

(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Leaning keep, this seems harmless, and accurately descriptive. BD2412 T 00:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It's a bit long, but it's accurate and it could be a possible search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Weak delete: Very long title that is entirely arbitrary. It isn't a plausible search term, because it does not match the title of any headline (Google Search returns zero results), and even if it did, I don't think it would be wise to create redirects from every single headline to a notable topic, since they could easily number in the hundreds if not thousands. This title is only going to be a search term for those readers who by sheer coincidence happen to type the same exact words while playing with the search box.
    Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have to admit that
Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 8 March 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
).

Porn lawyer

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 💬 10:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This name is ambiguous (surely other attorneys defended or prosecuted individuals involved in pornography) and unmentioned at the target, and while I would not recommend searching the term, it does not appear that Avenatti has ever been called by it. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think I saw him called that on Twitter a few times, but certainly not to the extent that would justify a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP. This is a slur worthy of immediate deletion. Stormy Daniels is indeed a porn star, but that doesn't make Avenatti a porn lawyer. His article doesn't even have a single word or source using this phrase. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Avenatti has been called creepy porn lawyer. WaPo That's close, but different. Another problem is there may be some attorneys who actually do represent the porn industry in some way. So porn lawyer is more of a profession than nickname for one person. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Iamreallygoodatcheckers's reason. This seems to be more of a term for a niche law practice than an actual person. --Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a BLP violation because it would not need a big jump to call Avenatti a "porn lawyer", but the term is too ambiguous. Although the search term could be considered plausible,
    Politrukki (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. He is not a "porn lawyer". He has been called as such by some people but redirecting it to him is incorrect. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7: This seems to have been overlooked, but the creator of this redirect (Iamreallygoodatcheckers) !voted to delete. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:56, 15 March 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
).

Question types

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Question types

Extended Constructed Response

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the article and the redirects unclear. (However, Extended Constructed Respose, though misspelled, is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended Constructed Respose in 2006; however, this edit was the extent of that merge, and that content seems to no longer be in the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Additionally because of typo in 'Respose'. Jay 💬 19:27, 15 March 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
).

Europe (country)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Europe (country)

Types of assessment

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! 00:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The redirect is a {{R from merge}} to its target, but ... shouldn't this redirect target Assessment? Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. -
    Talkback) 14:46, 8 March 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
).

Lord's Supper

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.
(non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"The term 'Lord's Supper' refers both to the biblical event and the act of 'Holy Communion' and Eucharistic ('thanksgiving') celebration within their liturgy. Evangelical Protestants also use the term 'Lord's Supper' " (Last Supper#Terminology).

Therefore, this redirect should be turned into a DAB with Eucharist and Last Supper. Veverve (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain. "A title for the Christian eucharist" is the only definition given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Even if it were ambiguous, there is a primary topic for the term and that is the Eucharist. See, e.g., I. Howard Marshall's The Last Supper and the Lord's Supper. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. In fact, the references in the Last Supper article suggesting that that was sometimes called the "Lord's Supper" were spurious. StAnselm (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The last supper as I understand it was the first celebration of the Eucharist. The "Lords Supper" is a common name for the Eucharist so redirecting to that page will lead into the explanation of both. The term is a common name for the Eucharist,but one which some Christians e.g. Roman Catholics may not know.Many non-Christians may come across the name and some Christians will know it best by that name. Where else should it be re-directed? Giving "Lords Supper" its own page will simply duplicate much of the Eucharist phraseSpinney Hill (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - many Protestant/Evangelical denominations use Lord's supper to describe the Eucharist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:53, 9 March 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
).

Testing

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) Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This redirect was mentioned at

WP:RMTR request, I'm bringing this redirect here, but am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

...However, with that being said, the participants in the
Fgnievinski, BarrelProof, and Silikonz) may not be neutral in the matter. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
...For example, in the
WP:RMTR discussion, BarrelProof mentioned a list of possible targets being found at Test#Science and technology. (Again, I'm neutral, but mentioning this in the event BarrelProof does not participate in this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 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_March_8&oldid=1145366668"