Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

June 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2024.

Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS[edit]

This is one of two shortcuts for the same section. It is little used (41 incoming links), and the title is vague.

It could plausibly be used for the current targets:

It could plausibly also be used for future sections of:

Daask (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much of a choice abstain. Moxy🍁 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with just leaving this alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive shortcuts make them less memorable, so there's some benefit to reducing the number in general. As I said, I find this particular one to have a particularly ambiguous name. Daask (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shortcuts having (potentially) ambiguous names is not a problem in itself (just look at every single character one and most two character ones for starters) and only becomes a problem if editors are actually misusing it practice and a hatnote cannot resolve the problems. Secondly, having more shortcuts than needed is also not a problem - there is no requirement to advertise all of them and people can use whichever they personally prefer. So you've not actually given any reason why this is problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the idea that excessive shortcuts (are) less memorable... flawed.
  • Are you saying that having fifteen shortcuts makes it hard for someone to remember any of them while trying to cite them? Because that's not the case-- people tend to just grab their favorite and only remember that one (for example, when citing Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English I will typically always use the shortcut WP:RLANG.)
  • Are you saying that having fifteen shortcuts makes it hard for someone to remember what shortcuts mean when someone else cites them? Because that's not an issue, either. If you run across an unfamiliar shortcut, just... click it and follow it. For example, say someone used the shortcut WP:RFFL and I had no idea what it meant. All I would need to do is click it, and see that it takes me to Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English, and then I'll go, "Oh, okay, it's WP:RLANG."
As for the idea that the title is vague... yeah, that's nothing new, either, many shortcuts are vague and/or imply something unsupported by the actual article they link to. We even have an entire essay on the books, WP:UPPERCASE, reminding editors to actually read the articles linked to by shortcuts, in order to check and make sure that they actually support the points they're cited for. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (programming language)[edit]

Tom and List of programming languages only lists one programming language called Tom or TOM – Tom (pattern matching language) – so I suggest retarget, delete, delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mwwv converse∫edits 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PANDORA should not be used; see user:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box
That said, support these actions; save for the citing of WP:PANDORA, all of this seems correct to me. (WP:CONSISTENT can support the deletion of TOM computer language on its own.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macra (rivers)[edit]

As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [[2]]. And anyway Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but fix articles if needed. The Magra we can see from Lib Congress subject headings. The Maira was also known as the Macra and the Merula according to A Geographical Dictionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete we don't have plural qualifiers for things in the singular even if there were multiple rivers with this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a redirect so that concern shouldn't apply. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Having a plural redirect to the DAB may suggest to readers there is an article about multiple rivers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So a random reader is looking at the DAB page, clicks "what links here" and, because he sees a plural parenthetical disambiguator, makes an assumption that there will be a page about multiple rivers on the disambiguation page he has left. Seems very unlikely to me. However we could redirect to section where that section is "Rivers". This seems to be pure in the sense that we would redirect "Mayors of Foo" to a mayors section on Foo if there was one, or a list of mayors of Foo, or a dab page, or section of a dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Keep, 2) Delete per WP:R#HARMFUL b/c the first link contains non-trivial edit history. Special:Diff/232665485 contains the (unsourced) claim that Macra is the Latin name of these rivers, which seems likely to be correct and is not reflected in any of the sources before us. Kudos to Rich Farmbrough for finding what sources we have. Daask (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as we do not have any articles about a collective group of rivers named "Macra". Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karli Smith[edit]

Victims of a shooting generally do not have articles unless they become notable in their own right. It isn't appropriate to associate a search term of their names with an event which took their life. The individuals would already appear in search results on the event article without the need of an explicit redirect. I am unsure if there is specific policy around this, as WP:VICTIM merely mentions outright articles specifically. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well other victims of shootings typically get redirected to the shooting article. Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting for example. Victims such as Allison Wyatt, Grace McDonnell etc have redirects. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is poor and is not in itself a reason why the aforementioned should be kept as redirects. We have to ask for what benefit and purpose does an article or redirect serve in its existence? I don't see any value in these redirects and as the victims are all deceased, cannot decide themselves if they'd want their identities associated with such an atrocity. I don't see any policy specific to this circumstance, which is probably why there is no agreed precedent. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well like i said, most articles on mass tragedy events have redirects with the victims names. If you think its morally wrong or u dont agree with it, you should make this a bigger discussion and not just solely on the FedEx shooting. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but a poor existing precedent (generally speaking) isn't necessary justification to pursue further of a similar nature. That is the reason I brought them to rfd, as it's a community decision, not solely my own view. As for the bigger discussion, maybe it is warranted, but it's quite a minefield and this only concerns these redirects yet to be reviewed. If the consensus is to keep, then it's a moot point anyway, though in such a scenario i'd hope to see a better rationale than "others exist too". Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existing precedent is the primary source of policies and guidelines, assuming that the policies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are to be believed. If we have no written rule against it, and it is frequently done, then it probably is the community's normal practice to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm surprised there isn't a clear policy on this. We should be guided by WP:RPURPOSE. If the victim's name is widely known enough that "Killing of EXAMPLE" is a plausible article title and existing redirect, then I accept a redirect from "EXAMPLE" as well, because it is a plausible way that a reader might search for the relevant article, eg. Philando Castile, Jeff Doucet. Otherwise, I think we should avoid these redirects. I hold this position even, and maybe even especially, if the person is approaching notability for an article in their own right for reasons unrelated to their death. If there are other relevant articles on their life apart from their death, we don't want to usurp those by redirecting rather than showing search results. Daask (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stubby (Pokémon)[edit]

funny, but i found nothing suggesting that this was ever even speculated to be its name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it just occurred to me that "stubby" is an actual word
which means i should look for any mention of a bidoof with that nickname, which is worse than looking for a pokémon with that name for its species cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked Bulbapedia. According to them, while there are no in-game trades featuring a Bidoof named Stubby in any generation, in the Sinnoh games, you can enter a Super Contest and end up facing down a Pokemon with the nickname "Stubby."
The issue is that Stubby is a Barboach, not a Bidoof. This is true in both Gen 4 and Gen 8. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magburn[edit]

fan speculation for its english name, on the same vein as laxbe which i nominated a little under (or was it over?) a month ago. unlike laxbe, i found a few results, but they pretty solidly established this as a fan name that was dropped in favor of its admittedly inferior official name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a reference to this as a fan-name is added. If it has a few results it seems to be a decently plausible search target, however niche. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arzeus[edit]

may admittedly be jumping the gun here. this doesn't seem similar to any possible spelling or pronunciation of its name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a single character "typo" (really, an alternative spelling). The page history indicates that the name was originally spelled Arseus. Also, Cogsan, RFD#KEEP says that Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. This redirect was created in 2006 (~18 years ago). It's always best to leave these elderly redirects alone unless there is a serious problem (e.g., the wording of the link itself violates BLP ["Bob is a poopy head"]) or if you want agreement to turn the redirect into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i kind of don't really buy it being old or possibly linked somewhere else as a possible reason to keep it, since there seems to be no precedent to or acknowledgement of this particular spelling or pronunciation that doesn't involve jumping through a few hoops
    either way, i looked into the time each page was created, moved, or whatever else, and the first name i could see created here was "aruseus", created on september 30, 2006, which was moved to "arseus" on october 2, 2006 (over the romaji being trademarked), and then to "arceus" in march 14, 2007 (over the name finally being confirmed). arzeus was created as a redirect to arseus in december 1, 2006, the day after aruseus was created. i don't know what this is supposed to imply other than "arzeus" being a phonetic spelling of a possible mispronunciation of a then only possible romaji spelling of its japanese name (which would require having never heard "セ" being used) that may have been used for a while before people were 100% sure that that was at least not one of the 3-ish possible ways to pronounce it in english, so i guess change my vote to a very confused weak keep per "i think it could have been used before, maybe". i'm not sure if this counts as wp:cheap, to be honest cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WhatamIdoing; this satisfies the burden of plausibility posed by WP:RTYPO (a single-character 'typo' redirect should be kept), and also satisfies the burden of age posed by WP:RFD#KEEP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoznam.sk[edit]

A redirect to Seznam.cz seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different websites. Zoznam.sk looks more like a tabloid than independent source, and I can't find any evidence that both sites are owned by the same agency/publisher. I would suggest to delete and leave as an empty page until someone did a research about the site with proper references. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair, I just notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Jay 💬 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croangunk[edit]

implausible misspelling? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the spoken word in English can easily sound like it may have an "n" in the middle and therefore is perhaps plausible someone could be searching a word from what they hear. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...wah-huh? I... have never heard "Croagunk" pronounced like that, ever? Isn't it pronounced like "croak" (y'know, as in a frog) with the K lopped off, and then the word "gunk"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i was thinking it might have been an accent thing or a "regiice" case, but i haven't seen that in action cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be accent related. When I say it, it could at times possibly sound like it has an "n" in the middle. Redirects are WP:CHEAP after all and the bar for keeping is lower, although I don't have too much conviction in this view, hence the "weak". Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkin Bonuts[edit]

Unlikely typo. Created by same user as #Geegle Earth below. Mia Mahey (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Guy Ritchie project/film[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Target no longer untitled. After almost 2 months since the previous nomination, the page views for both redirects are incredibly minimal. Delete both per WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Untitled Guy Ritchie project, this is still getting viewing figures in double figures, not minimal in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    <1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems pretty minimal to me. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    27 views in 30 days is not even close to minimal - it's being used on more days that it is isn't. Less than 1 use a week is the order of magnitude that typically indicates the utility has passed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregarding our obvious difference in opinion, another issue here is that apparently, Guy Ritchie is involved with so many projects simultaneously that we really have no idea which subject a reader may be looking for when searching these topics. For example, one of their projects/films, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, was apparently in the works during a similar timeframe as these redirects' target, and even had similar starring actors. WP:UFILM disagreements aside, these redirects have even more problems. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Untitled Guy Ritchie film (and definitely don't delete before the 7 days are up). Page views suggest we're into the final stragglers for this one, but it's not completely clear it's utility has quite ended - it would have been better to wait just a bit longer with this one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. "The redirect might cause confusion." WP:R#DELETE. Daask (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Beetlejuice sequel[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. The target subject no longer untitled, and the article was moved to its current title in February 2024, 4 months ago, which is greater than WP:UFILM's 30-day minimum. Steel1943 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once again the point of UFILM is not that we wait exactly 30 days, but that we wait until the redirects have ceased being useful (30 days being the bottom end of the typical range of time when that occurs). In this case it's still being used on more days that it isn't indicating that the redirect still holds value and the nomination is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    <1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems like its utility has been passed now. And 4 months = 4 * 30 days, which is well over the minimum time established. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my reply above regarding page views. 12 views in 30 days is closer to minimal than the 27 you are claiming above, but double figure views spread pretty evenly through the 30 days strongly indicate utility. That it's been longer than the minimum time means nothing other than it's been longer than the minimum time, as I explained in the comment you are replying to (did you read it?). There is no maximum time - if it's useful (which the evidence shows it still is) then it should be kept, regardless of how long it's been. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for validating that my page view claim contains factual information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GSK (talk • edits) 18:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I see no valid reason for deleting and "someone finds them useful" is good enough for WP:R#KEEP. Delete it once the film is released or another is in production, when the redirect might cause confusion with the next film. Daask (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding revisiting this when "...another is in production...": That means this redirect should exist for an estimated average of almost 40 years!? I may no longer be able to care by then for multiple reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence shows otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTP[edit]

See page history. It's clearly not the creator's intention but this redirect implies Wikipedia considers the title to be an alternative term for LGBT, which is extremely undesirable to say the least. J947 ‡ edits 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per lizthegrey only if the information Liz mentions is added to the article. If not, delete as per Maplestrip/Mable. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless added to the article. I'm not covinced it is DUE - LGBT grooming conspiracy theory can't cover every viral anti-gay meme - and this isn't the best context to answer that question.--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and not even sure if it is DUE there. As a second choice, retarget if the information is added but definitely don't keep it where it is now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless mentioned. I don't have an opinion about whether it should be mentioned, but unless it is mentioned the redirect is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It can be recreated if there is an article which discusses this acronym. Daask (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, add a brief mention of it to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and redirect. If not, delete for now and let it be redirected later if appropriate. Either way, it shouldn't stay as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quick search shows no actual use. Rankersbo (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Fact check: The LGBTQ community is not adding "P" to their acronym". Reuters. 2 June 2020. Retrieved 5 June 2024.
  2. ^ Caldera, Camille (30 July 2020). "Fact check: LGBTQ community rejects false association with pedophiles". USA TODAY. Retrieved 5 June 2024.
  3. ^ Artavia, David (30 July 2020). "Trolls Push Fake Acronym 'LGBTP' to Associate Gays With Pedophilia". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 5 June 2024.

Geegle Earth[edit]

Unlikely typo. Created by same user as Geegle earth, which was deleted in 2020. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_5