Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21

July 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2022.

Cocompact

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cocompact → Cocompact group action (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Looks like this needs to be disambiguated with cocompact embedding, cocompact lattice, and cocompact Coxeter group. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support disambiguation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguation. I'm not sure by what criteria it is decided which proposed edits need to be discussed on such a page as this before they are done. I would have gone ahead and made the page into a disambiguation page rather than posting here. I've done that on previous occasions. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or soft redirect to wikt:cocompact. There is nothing to disambiguate: all of the nom's quoted terms are WP:Partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The linked pages refer to different meanings of the adjective; just like compact#Mathematics or open#Mathematics or a lot of other adjective disambiguations. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Magnesium-L-threonate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Magnesium-L-threonate

2014 Ukrainian Civil War

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#2014 Ukrainian Civil War

World Open Chinese Studies Journal

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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Open Chinese Studies Journal → Category:World Current Research Publishing academic journals (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Odd unused WP:XNR that links to a category without the CAT: pseudoprefix. Also, this is a bit of a surprising redirect, so I think delete.~~ I did not know there was a much larger discussion about this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects. I am withdrawing my nomination in favor of keep TartarTorte 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TartarTorte There are nearly 4,000 redirects from various journal titles to this category, see Current Research Publishing academic journals&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1&limit=500. These also appear to have been created as part of a bot task - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TokenzeroBot 6. Something doesn't seem right here, it seems the intention was to create redirects to the article on the publisher, but since the publisher itself is a redirect to this category they were created as category redirects instead? I really don't see the point of a category full of redirects that link back to the category, the category serves no useful navigational purpose and the redirects do not get readers to any kind of particularly useful content about the journal or its publisher (a page which says the publisher was on Beall's List but isn't notable enough for a proper article isn't particularly great). 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! This is far weirder than I thought. I'm not really sure how to go about proposing a general cleanup to that. TartarTorte 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per previous discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would this qualify for speedy keeping? First of all - something being nominated for deletion in the past does not make it exempt from ever being nominated for deletion again. Secondly that discussion was about the category, not the redirects contained within it. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was both about the redirects and the categories, and everyone in that discussion understood that. And a speedy because the rationale is ill-considered, and there is nothing special about World Open Chinese Studies Journal that doesn't also apply to the tens of thousand of other redirects and the dozens of categories concerned. Any legitimate discussion needs to focus on the bulk situation, not on World Open Chinese Studies Journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These categories which include only redirects to themselves were already discussed previously. (They were discussed as categories for deletion, but the points remain largely the same.) In short: they are here to redirect users who look for journals used in Wikipedia citations. Because citations are such a crucial part of Wikipedia, for questionable/predatory/deceptive journals/publishers, we'd like to present the user with a short information about that (of course with citations and with regular oversight from people working on the WP:CITEWATCH project and everyone else). There are no articles even for the publishers because they are not notable, there's nothing else to say about them. The format (mainspace redirects to a category) is unusual, but not against any rules and so far I haven't seen a significantly better proposal. See the previous discussion for details. Tokenzero (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be ok with withdrawing if that's good with IP. In nominating the page I had not come across the discussion linked above. TartarTorte 18:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just withdrawn the nomination. No need to get the IP's blessing for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can withdraw, but not close per WP:WITHDRAW. Striking nom statement now and adding an explanation. TartarTorte 20:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the previous discussion and the responses above I am unconvinced that this is a useful redirect. If these are supposed to be a tool for editors then they belong in behind the scenes project space, possibly as part of some kind of "list of predatory journals to avoid". As it stands these are in reader facing article space, and I do not think that sending readers to a dead end category is useful. If a topic is not notable enough for an article then they don't get an article, creating a "Pseudo-article" as a category page so you don't have to follow notability guidelines is just gaming the system. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, echoing my !vote in the linked CfD and affirming that I still agree with the deletion arguments there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussion. Also, given the usefulness of these cats/redirects, this is one of the extremely rare cases where I invoke WP:IAR. (Which is probably not even necessary, as this is not against any rules). --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the reader is offered useful information at the Category page, and these categories provide an elegant way in which we can inform readers about a large number of journals for which we have a nugget of useful information (basically: "likely to be predatory") but which do not merit individual articles. PamD 07:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again? What it is with this incessant relisting? This is an obvious keep, if only for procedural reasons and the ill-considered nature of the RFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD, at least until there is a possible article space target. —Kusma (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Secret Agent (documentary)

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 Criticism of the BBC#Secret Agent biased documentary against British National Party. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Agent (documentary) → Criticism of the BBC#Secret Agent documentary (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This documentary does not appear to be mentioned in the article - redlink in order to encourage article creation? QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the target article has been renamed since this redirect was created, updated to reflect current name Smurfr (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Retarget Criticism of the BBC#Secret Agent biased documentary against British National Party. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the mention at the section. Jay 03:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

American Vulture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#American Vulture

Univeristy of Klausenburg

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Univeristy of Klausenburg

Match Game (Home Game)

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match Game (Home Game) → Match Game#Home games (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nothing links here. Majority of game show articles do not have separate article for home game merchandise. AldezD (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The redirect exists because it traces back to the fact that there was a separate article for the home game merchandise that was created in 2007. It was originally named Match Game (Home Game) before I moved it to Match Game (home game) in order to fix the capitalization in 2009. Back then, keeping that resulting redirect instead of deleting it was not a big deal. And likely back then, there probably were links directly to the original page with the upper case. There are no links now because after it was merged to Match Game#Home games in 2010, all those resulting double redirects had to be fixed. Now in 2022, I am neutral whether to delete that resulting redirect with the upper case "Home Game", if that is what the current consensus is, under today's interpretation of WP:RFD#DELETE. However, the redirect with the lower case "home game" definitely still needs to be kept per WP:ATTREQ and WP:RFD#KEEP as a result of the page merge. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K1 and Zzyzx11. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, harmless, the normal-cased Match Game (home game) also exists. Jay 09:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:UO

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. A lot of weak !votes, but there's general agreement that the existing redirect is not helpful to current and future users, and delete has more support than retargeting. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:UO → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

To be honest, I don't know exactly what uo means, much less why it redirect to npov. Q 𝟤 𝟪 08:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When this was created in 2004, it linked to a section that defined it as standing for "Un-verifiable/falsifiable Opinion". See also WP:UVO. - Eureka Lott 09:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep we always need to be very cautious when deleting or retargetting shortcut redirects, because there is a high chance of causing confusion (or worse) by changing the meaning of old discussions (including unlined uses) and edit summaries. However in this case it is essentially unused with the only non-mention link being Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 019#But POV is bad, isn't it? from 2006 (and the context there is clear so the risk of confusion is low). However, I landed at weak keep because I'm not seeing any obvious benefit from deletion - if the proposal was to use the shortcut for something else I'd say go ahead and allow usurping, but no such alternative use is mentioned and I'm not aware of anything this would be a logical shortcut for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently does not link to any conversations. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:UO. Most of the links are the result of this discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target has 70+ more shortcuts, many of them could be long unused. Unless the shortcuts are confusing to someone who was looking for something else, there is not much usefulness going after these. @Q28: How did you stumble upon this shortcut? Jay 04:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of user pages possibly? Where Wikipedia:UOWN already targets, and this redirect is roughly similar. There's also Wikipedia:UOM which targets a WikiProject, but I'm not sure if the target is notable enough. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's defunct as is, and far more likely to confuse than be of help going forward, but I'm still sympathetic to the idea that repurposing it would be better. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford is the best option I could find. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:TABLOIB

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

09:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TABLOIB → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect looks misspelled, and the closest I can get to the word is tabloid. Q 𝟤 𝟪 07:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be a likely typo and has never been used. ~~

Delete unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely misspelling Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unintuitive. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete improbable misspelling --24.22.232.179 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CHG

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Wikipedia:CHG

Mark Taylor (television)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Mark Taylor (television)

Melonfarmer

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 01:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melonfarmer → Minced oath (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article. I assume this redirect is an example of the subject of the target article, but not an alternative name for the subject of the target article, which leaves the existence of this redirect misleading. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, the only other article which mentions this term in a section other than the "References" section is Joanne Mitchell, but the subject of "Melonfarmer" in that article seems to be some sort of theater production. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also seems to be the name of several referenced websites in en.wiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fudge (euphemism)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Fudge (euphemism)