Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Aerial apparatus: Ping {{re|Skynxnex}}
→Aerial apparatus: Ping {{re|Skynxnex}}
Tag: Reverted
Line 163: Line 163:
*'''Comment'''. I added the capitalized [[Aerial Apparatus]] to the nomination. Pinging {{re|Hanyangprofessor2}}, {{re|VolatileAnomaly}}, {{re|Skynxnex}}. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I added the capitalized [[Aerial Apparatus]] to the nomination. Pinging {{re|Hanyangprofessor2}}, {{re|VolatileAnomaly}}, {{re|Skynxnex}}. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Target both''' to [[Fire engine#Aerial apparatus]] with hatnote {{tlx|redirect|other uses of aerial apparatus|List of acrobatic activities}}. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 15:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Target both''' to [[Fire engine#Aerial apparatus]] with hatnote {{tlx|redirect|other uses of aerial apparatus|List of acrobatic activities}}. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 15:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
{{re|Skynxnex}}

Revision as of 15:43, 22 June 2025

June 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2025.

Bhat (food)

Not mentioned in target article. Not mentioned in the most related article Rice as food. Target does not have affinity to cultures that utilize Sanskrit (which seems to be where this word originates from). A search for ("bhat" food) turns up multiple results that are all WP:PTMs. Delete per the aforementioned and WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of rice dishes. Bhat or bhāt occurs in many modern languages meaning rice or boiled rice, spoken where rice is a staple of the diet. For example dal bhat is Nepal's national dish. This and another dishes containing bhat are listed here. It's common to see bhat written in Latin script as English is widely spoken in the region and is one of India's national languages. This is certainly culturally relevant and redirects are cheap. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 22:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early Qu'ran Manuscripts in Sana'a

Misspelling. Qur'an not Qu'ran, moved page but redirect needs to be deleted. --pro-anti-air (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mine clearer

Ambiguous; could redirect to minesweeper or minesweeper (video game). Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix. The very first sentence of Demining is Demining or mine clearance is the process of removing land mines from an area, it's clearly the primary topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John God

That's not his name. There are several Johns mentioned on the page, but no "John God". Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spook mountain

Not mentioned at target page, no clear relationship Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal system

Several articles (see "What links here") link to Tonal system with the intention of pointing towards Tonal system (Nystrom). Clicking these and being redirected to Chromatic scale just made me confused. The mentioned Nystrom page already has a hatnote that points towards the musical system.

Even if a redirect to the music theory is preferred, wouldn't tonality be the more appropriate target? --FIQ (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Aung Ko Ko

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa Aung Ko Ko closed with consensus to delete and this redirect was created very shortly after, despite having no support, by the creator, who was very disruptive and had to be taken to WP:ANI for repeatedly disrupting this AfD. There is no evidence on my internet searches, using multiple search engines, that there was ever a player called "Sa Aung Ko Ko" playing for Woodlands Lions. Also worth noting that the creator initially tried to redirect this page to Eunos Crescent FC prior to the deletion. The only evidence that I can find for the existence of this person is Cosmo League, which is not WP:RS. Funnily enough, that link says he plays for Gaelic Lions FC.

In any case, at WP:FOOTY, we don't redirect players to clubs as most players change clubs multiple teams during their careers so a redirect would only cause confusion. In this case, I strongly oppose it as there is not even one source to link this player to Woodlands Lions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article

Unnecessary XNR redirect. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nien

The member is not that popular and she wouldnt be the primary topic for Nien. Theres also no dab page for Nien. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States intelligence

That should be the CIA. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Het route

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention on target page, not useful as a redirect. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Het route?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of not seen Shen Gong Wu

Implausible redirect and unlikely search term. It was probably created as an article when the show was airing, then turned into a redirect, but now that the show has ended, all Shen Gong Wus in it has been revealed 2603:7000:2600:298D:9831:C2C5:FB11:96C7 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Park, MD μSA

I believe this redirect should be deleted as the μSA now encompasses 2 US counties I do not think it should remain as a redirect as the Lexington Park μSA is no longer coextensive with St. Mary's County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am the pootis man1 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Hall, Indiana

Delete I moved this town to the correct name as given by GNIS. I could find no references to it under the old name, and it appears that it's just something the original author just made up (I've found other such errors in the articles created for this county). Given a lack of external usage this should just go away so as not to create the impression of a legitimate alternate spelling. Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9,568 recently-created redirects from SCOTUS cases

Listing all {{rfd2}}s here would have broken the page several times over. Instead, please see the pages below. To closing admin: To delete all, you can use Twinkle delete-batch. To keep all, simply massrollback all recent mainspace edits by User:'zin is short for Tamzin.

This is a bulk nomination of the results of quarry:query/94763, redirects created by PickleG13 from the names of U.S. Supreme court cases to sublists of Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume. (There are only 15 such redirects created by other users, which should be assessed separately as they may have more complex backstories.) I hate to undo what was clearly a lot of work by someone trying to improve the encyclopedia, but these 9,568 are all not just useless but worse than useless. Essentially all SCOTUS cases are notable to some degree. For the distinct minority that don't pass GNG, there is still usually room for a substantive mention in some article, like Hamm v. Smith. When a user encounters a redlinked Supreme Court case, that should be an immediate sign of an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia, either by writing an article or redirecting to an article with a substantive mention. However, these case lists merely give the most basic metadata. They don't tell the reader much other than the case existing, which they likely already knew; and if all they wanted to know was what year the case was that basic metadata, the search results will still tell them.

Lethargilistic has already commented on PickleG13's talk about how this undiscussed mass creation has seriously interfered with his workflow. I noticed this because I was rereading a GA I wrote and was excited to see that a case I redlinked in it was now blue. The way I describe that case is basically begging someone to turn the redlink blue, but now they'd have to click on it to know that we don't actually have an article on the case. This is why WP:REDDEAL says A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be 'left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information.' ... Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for the creation of a new article with at least minimal information content. ... The red link may identify a need to create a redirect to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic. and why WP:RETURNTORED says we should delete If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Again, I hate to delete a lot of hard work, but I think the alternative is silently discouraging many new article creations. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] 08:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per allat Roast (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all Yeah, this is bad not only for the reasoning given above, but because simply redirecting a single case into a list that only relists it by name without any explanation is simply wasting the reader's time. There may be a need to deal with relatively minor cases without writing an article on each, but this is the wrong solution to that because it isn't a solution at all, and because it hides the reality of lacking a write-up of the case. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I find a case that clearly falls beneath the GNG, I add a holding summary to the list page and redirect the title to that entry. Because of the design of my project of creating them, that's only happened once or twice, but I think that makes more sense than redirecting as a default. lethargilistic (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who created these redirects, so obviously I did them in good faith. My intention was not to interfere with new article creation, and as soon as I realized that it posed a complication for another editor, I stopped midway through my project of doing so. My intention was to provide for people looking up cases on Wikipedia to be navigated at least to their year and some more sourcing details, rather than not being given any results; for those creating pages on new cases, I understand why this may not have made total sense, and I certainly didn't mean to interrupt anyone's workflow. I've made a lot of useful redirects over time, which is why I decided to embark upon this project to the tune of thousands of edits, and I would still stand by my work in arguing to Keep. I began this endeavor because I was working on a draft article with Sumanah, who redirected a court case to one of these dockets, sparking my inspiration and thus allowing me a greater sense of knowledge for the court case in question. However, if the consensus is to delete, I understand and I hope we can continue to improve Wikipedia surrounding SCOTUS cases. PickleG13 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide on a case-by-case basis. I have created a handful such redirects for completeness, where it was clear that the case was too minor to justify an article. BD2412 T 00:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any practical way to do this case-by-case, and requiring that would make this a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. But per your and Lethargilistic's comments, I wouldn't have any problem with this closing as delete all without prejudice against case-by-case recreation, allowing for those rare cases where the list entry really is a comprehensive target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, that is a high number of pages to be nominated. The largest moms I have ever seen.... I agree that this should be made on a case-by-case basis since it would rather take time and effort for editors to investigate each redirect and for admins to rollback/delete the pages. I will default as delete unless justification could be found. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to 'zin[is short for Tamzin], Roast, lethargilistic, BD2412, and ToadetteEdit for engaging in this important discussion, which connects to wider setting of precedent on Wikipedia. I created these redirects out of a fascination with cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. It was one of my biggest projects on Wikipedia, and I pursued it in a good faith attempt to genuinely make it easier for people to learn about the judicial branch. I understand that it has caused frustration and confusion, and has made some work around court case pages more complicated. While I believe that deciding on a case-by-case basis is what would handle things in an ideal way long term, and I would be willing to go through all of the pages personally to perform this work, I also understand that the consensus is leaning toward delete. I am no longer opposed to deleting these redirects, and I will do whatever I can to make sure things look the best that they can in the future, as I am so grateful to be part of our Wikipedian community. PickleG13 (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially per nom and Mangoe. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, very nicely presented, and nothing else to say really. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all without prejudice against case-by-case recreation. Argument is perfectly encapsulated by WP:REDDEAL and WP:RETURNTORED, and I'm sure everyone here acknowledges that the creator was acting in good faith. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 16:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max, Mon Amore

WP:R#D8 / WP:FORRED I could be wrong, but "mon amore" doesn even seem to be proper Italian. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible misspelling. There was a Universal crossword some years ago that had the clue "Love at the foot of Mt. Etna". I spent half an hour trying to figure out how to make AMORE fit there before eventually conceding the only thing that fit was AMOUR. Then I went and looked up if that was the spelling in Sicilian (nope), or if there was some French-speaking community near Mt. Etna (also nope). Turns out Universal crosswords just aren't very good. But that does show this is a plausible mix-up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial apparatus

Presumably refers to a flying machine, but that is not mentioned in the disambig being targetted under technology. I am unsure if it can refer to something else. Should be retarget this somewhere, update the disambig or just delete? Linked from only a single new article (formerly, it was just a rough translation which I corrected). A potential better redirect target, if we want to keep this curio, could be flying machine. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skynxnex:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_20&oldid=1296833569"