Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

28 June 2025

Read how to nominate a redirect for discussion.

June 28

[edit]

SB 4-C

[edit]

Incorrectly tagged with PROD by Armeym (talk · contribs) with rationale: Redirect destination contains no information about what SB 4-C is or does, except for a single instance where its use is mentioned. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle the variants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreserved seat

[edit]

I don't know what it is with all these non-Chinese titles redirecting to articles about Chinese trains, but this title is very ambiguous. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 03:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie N.

[edit]

Julie N oil spill originally misspelled the name of the ship involved in the oil spill as "Julie N.", with the period at the end. This redirect used to point to "Julie N. oil spill" (with a period after the N) -- an article whose name was corrected to "Julie N oil spill" (no period). This redirect is an orphan and also not the name of the ship. Alternatively it might make sense to move this redirect to "Julie N," but I don't really think a redirect would be useful there regardless. —tony 20:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and create Julie N). This is both a plausible search term and a {{R from move}}, both reasons to keep, and this appears to be the closest thing to a primary topic. We have a few articles about people called Julie with surnames starting with N, but none of them are particularly known by their first name and initial, so a hatnote to Julie (given name)#People (and expanding that list) would be sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading town

[edit]

There are lots of towns named "Reading" so this isn’t correct. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gâteau

[edit]

Does this pass WP:FORRED? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring original !vote due to misunderstanding of WP:PTM — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 07:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like both to redirect to the same place. Looking at some high-quality sources, we see:
  • These days, it's usually a rich, elaborately decorated cake.[1][2]
  • In its original English use (c. Victorian era), it was any kind of cake, and even things that weren't really cake, but had some cake-like qualities.[3] It even included molded rice puddings.[4] Elaborately decorated layer cakes became the more popular use later.[5]
  • In last half-century, it typically uses a boring sponge cake, but this is not inherent; what matters is the cream (and often fruit) filling and decorations.[6]
  • The French word still refers to any kind of cake.[7] Or even non-cakes, such as tarts, pancakes, and Gâteau Pithiviers, Saint-Honoré, and Paris–Brest pastry.[8]
Overall, I think that pointing both at Cake is slightly better, as that encompasses all of the historical, modern, and French meanings, but it is not unreasonable to point them both at Layer cake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulfcytel's land

[edit]

"Ulfcytel" is not mentioned at the target and without a mention that's confusing. It might be better to delete to enable Search to highlight Ulfcytel. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inherently confusing for older names to not be mentioned, but in this case, the name is sufficiently different and sufficiently old that it might be best to mention it. Ulfcytel says "Scandinavian sources give him the byname "snilling", meaning bold, and called East Anglia "Ulfkell's Land" after him" in the lead and "The contemporary Scandinavian court poet Sigvatr Þórðarson called East Anglia "Ulfkell's Land" after Ulfcytel, and he gave him the byname snilling, meaning valiant or bold" in the body of the article. There is an inline citation at the end of the second one. Why don't you copy a bit of that information and the source over to East Anglia, and then withdraw this nomination? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial apparatus

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute (EP)

[edit]

It's not clear why this redirects here - it isn't mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The history here is a bit complicated. In June 2006 an article about an EP by this name was created at The Parachute by user:Russ is the sex, it was nominated for speedy deletion about two hours later, but that was declined and converted to a prod. That prod was accompanied by (but not replaced by) a suggestion to merge to hellogoodbye from the original author, which the speedy deletion nominator (HarryCane, who hasn't edited since 2011) indicated in an edit summary they had done. In 2007 The Parachute was retargetted to The parachute1 which was later moved to The Parachute (novel), which was speedily deleted in 2008 as a G11 (although it didn't indicate notability it didn't seem overly promotional to me), leading to the redirect being speedily deleted under R1 (today's G8). Meanwhile in April 2007 J r glenn created Parachute e.p. as an article, which was moved to Parachute (EP) by Brianga a few minutes later. The following day, HarryCane redirected it citing the "consensus in the edit history of The Parachute". Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added Parachute e.p. to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if mention is added, otherwise delete. If the content of either former article can be verified (I haven't looked) then it should be added as 1-2 sentences at the target, then both redirects should point to that mention. Otherwise it should be deleted. I'm not advocating a restoration of the article content on this occasion as the first article was prodded without objection and the second didn't add anything new, but if anyone else thinks it should be restored then I will support that and my "delete" recommendation should be regarded as invalid in that cirumstance. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multifunction

[edit]

I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect this adjective to the current target: a Multi-function printer is not known as "a multifunction", whereas a Multivalued function apparently is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Díaz

[edit]

Baseball minor league players are grouped by their respective organisation. This player was most recently a member of the Milwaukee Brewers, but never made an appearance for the Major League team, and so did not get his own article. He has since left the team, has not played at all since 2023, and is presumably retired, and the related mini-profile for him was removed from the redirect's target article.

Propose deleting per WP:RFD#DELETE point 2 -- it's confusing to be taken to a page that has no related content.

My only concern is whether it needs to be kept under WP:RFD#KEEP point 1, given the text further back in the edit histor was merged in. (However, it was merged in by the original author, so presumably counts as reaffirming the license..?) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inherently confusing to be able to find the name of a redirect in the article. RFD#DELETE #2 gives an example of a redirect to pointing at a less-relevant article. RFD#DELETE #2 has nothing to do with whether the redirect is mentioned.
RFD#DELETE #8 is much more salient, and it is about "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target". So: Is it a synonym? No; this is a redirect to a broader subject, not to a different name for the same thing. If we pretend that it's a synonym, would it be "a novel or very obscure" one? No. People searching for a person's name, when they end up in a list, are not going to be confused. They're going to say "Ah, this is a list of baseball players, so he must have been a baseball player" or "That's the team he played for, so Dad got something about baseball wrong for the first time in my life!"
The information about Brent Díaz was removed in 2023. At a quick glance, my impression is that the scope of this article is current players only, and there is no place to put former/retired/dead players. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native americancuisie

[edit]

Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle bomb

[edit]

Google search results do not indicate that this is the correct target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. My google results show that molotov cocktails and similar improvised weapons is one of the correct targets, the other being some sort of fishing weight that I can't find any relevant content on, making this unambiguous in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US sailor

[edit]

Incorrect; not necessarily military Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun

[edit]

Delete. The curly apostrophe in Moon’s makes this implausible, and we have a parallel redirect (which I just created) with straight apostrophe, Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun, so there's no real likelihood of someone using this title. It's always been a redirect (it's the full form of the acronym in the title), so it's quite unlikely to get external links or links in old revisions of articles. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.

[edit]

G8 speedy was challenged as a valid redirect. I disagree, because this is "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", in the sense of being an {{avoided double redirect}} for a minor variant of North Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., which was deleted in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 20 § 9,568 recently-created redirects from SCOTUS cases (noting that the list of examples at G8 is non-exhaustive). But since it's been declined, alright: delete for the same reasons as its parent redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. lethargilistic (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scraface

[edit]

Unlikely typo to dab page. Roast (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seating Arraignment

[edit]

No mention in target article - delete? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Judge John Hodgman episodes (2010–2014); its an episode memtioned on that article. Still swayable for deletion, because this is miniscule for inclusion. Roast (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese officials

[edit]

Too vague a term. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first (Chinese) is ambiguous with modern officials and has only one incoming link. The rest has no incoming links and aren't clean targets, because "officials" tends to mean something more specific than the entire government. Jruderman (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jruderman. In sporting contexts, "officials" can also refer to referees/umpires/linesmen, etc and in Olympic contexts also seems to be sometimes used to refer to IOC members. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver ramming

[edit]

A local here, might be too vague, as that could refer to 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot or 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I could be missing something, but neither article about the Stanley Cup riots mentions a ramming/car attack. There were cars that was burned in the 2011 riot, but that is more an attack on a car. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Casablanca Rock. All the relevant hits on google for "Vancouver ramming" -Wikipedia relate to the 2025 attack, restricting searches to pages indexed prior to the date of the attack finds nothing relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rice gadu

[edit]

The word "gadu" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. (This redirect was formally an article that was subject to a WP:BLAR in 2014 after existing for 2 months.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plain rice

[edit]

Whatever this redirect is meant to represent, I do not believe that the generic article about Rice is the appropriate target. If anything, this phrase most likely refers to Rice as food, but even that is unclear. Maybe be best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Rice as Food makes more sense -- in that its descriptive of the thing being consumed (it's plain") rather than of the species or the product. Sadads (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In British usage, "Plain rice" (white steamed rice) is distinguished from "fried rice" or other "special" (with shrimp, etc) rice dishes. All this should be in Rice as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that Rice as food doesn't mention "plain rice" (yet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to rice as food. "Plain" need not be mentioned there, since its meaning is obvious, particularly in contrast with the not-plain varieties mentioned in the target. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia (Sony)

[edit]

Sony also owns the Columbia film company so there is no obvious target. Delete as this is too hyperspecific for a disambig page Kinopiko talk 21:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong cityscape

[edit]

Pointless redirect unless we were to have cityscape for every city. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and vinegar

[edit]

These all need the same target. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FChan

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, doesn't seem worth a mention Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inscript

[edit]

Dabify or hatnote with inscription? Ninixed (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptional

[edit]

Shouldn't it have the same target of inscription? Ninixed (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2030 South Korean presidential election

[edit]

Target does not mention 2030 election, unhelpful redirect. Redlink is better to encourage creation when needed Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 13:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=1141812774"