Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

June 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2023.

Dispersal order[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Dispersal order

Template feature[edit]

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 Template. Jay 💬 09:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highly ambiguous. Mediawiki is not the only thing in existence to use templates or to have a "templating feature". 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:MINIMUMDEATHS[edit]

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 Wikipedia:How ITN works (and how it doesn't)#WP:MINIMUMDEATHS?. Jay 💬 09:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should not target to a single person's view on the matter, regardless of where they stand. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_9#WP:MINIMUMDEATHS BangJan1999 23:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this essay was moved to project space prematurely. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT - was formerly deleted in 2018 and deleted for the same reason this shall be too - the fact that its redlinked is its purpose on ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Talent scouting for Hollywood[edit]

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 23:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target subject is not exclusive to Hollywood. The redirect creates that assumption, which is false and thus misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article does not use the term "scout" and implies the article is about people who find actors to be in films in Hollywood (akin to talent scout in sports) rather than about people who find films in Hollywood for actors to be in. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: misleading... WP:ASTONISH. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title creates no such expectation. What? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. It seems as though there is no article about talent scouting for the film/television industry at all, let alone Hollywood. The current target is actually about agents (not restricted to hollywood or even the entertainment industry). There are articles about talent scouts in sport (Scout (sport)) and music (Artists and repertoire) so I don't see why there couldn't be one for acting. A7V2 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but without prejudice on the creation of a future article per A7V2 --Lenticel (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

British Colombian[edit]

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 refine to Colombians#European Colombians. A hatnote will point to British Columbian. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to British Columbia for consistency with British Colombia/British Columbian. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Redirect was created by a sock, see SPI. Not G5 eligible as the page was created a day before master's block. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: British Colombians targets Colombians, the current target of the nominated redirect ... but was also created by the same editor who created the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Colombians#European Colombians. We should prioritise information on correct uses over information on incorrect uses. British Colombia is fine as there's no such thing actually named so, but for British Colombian there are Colombians who are British as well as British Columbians. J947 † edits 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per J947. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per J947 --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept at Colombians, that will need a hatnote for British Columbian -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:SME[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Expert editors. The only arguments for keeping were objectively refuted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All incoming links seem to mean this to refer to WP:Subject-matter expert, i.e. WP:Expert editors, rather than the current target, with this confusion actually being discussed here and here. Seems like this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Expert editors and the corresponding expansion of the initialism redirected to the same page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:EX doesn't even include the words "subject matter expert" and no, all incoming links are not people confusing the meaning of the essay. GMGtalk 18:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo: In what incoming link of WP:SME does the user actually mean to refer to WP:Super Mario effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go look? It's not really my job to disabuse you in detail of the assumtions you made when filing the request. GMGtalk 19:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo: I did look before making this nomination, and identified all incoming links as attempting to refer to "subject-matter expert" rather than the Mario essay. But if you disagree with that assessment, please indicate where you disagree. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So...You didn't identify people rightly pointing to the place they were trying to point to? GMGtalk 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I mean that nobody linking WP:SME intended to refer to WP:Super Mario effect, which implies that it is a bad shortcut for that essay. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really not picking up what I'm laying down. I'm very strongly implying that if yu go back and look at the incoming links, your asssertion is incorrect. GMGtalk 19:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I'm not, because apparently we are seeing things completely differently. Can you identify one incoming link that intended to point to Super Mario effect? What about the two cases I linked in the nomination? Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently the following incoming links to WP:SME, excluding those generated by {{Rfd notice}}, this discussion itself, and shortcut tables that include every single 3-letter shortcut:
Out of these, only Wikipedia:Super Mario effect's link as a shortcut unambiguously refers to the Super Mario Effect, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098 is a user getting confused at the definition of SME after it was used to mean "Subject-matter expert". The rest all point towards the clause of WP:SPS that a self-published source is only considered reliable if it's written by a subject-matter expert. @GreenMeansGo: could you please provide examples of people using WP:SME as pointing towards Wikipedia:Super Mario effect? Randi🦋TalkContribs 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They won't, because there aren't any, and apparently they are bored. Users should not accuse other users of being wrong when the evidence indicates otherwise- totally contrary to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Clearly they were the ones being presumptuous. Sad that their response caused you to spell it out for them, when the expectation at Rfd is that when backlinks are discussed, any user can use the "links" link at the top of the Rfd to investigate for themselves. These sorts of jumping to conclusions and ignorance of evidence and false assertions wastes other user's time. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's not my fault that this was mixed up with a botched MfD. And it's a little weird that you're watching my user page. I'm simply not dwelling here. I don't care. I forgot I even wrote this essay. GMGtalk 19:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: It's a good essay. And I apologize for the confusion caused by using Twinkle with the redirect target open instead of the redirect itself- a rookie mistake. But yeah, doesn't change the fact this should not be a shortcut for the essay, or that calling me wrong when I wasn't, and not responding when your doubling down on your false assertion was challenged, was inappropriate and unhelpful. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's not any obligation for me to respond to anything. I'm not an admin on this project. Also I travel a lot, more than I'd prefer. Delete, retarget, what-have-you. GMGtalk 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Overly presumptuous delete rationale. No confusion is being caused by this. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one example, a user piping this redirect by writing [[WP:SME|Subject-matter experts]] at Talk:Rosemarie_Koczy#Proposed_New_Section_about_Controversy is pretty indicative of confusion regarding where this shortcut targets. Any user following the link from that discussion will be astonished. As another example, a user writing The author might arguably be a WP:SME at Talk:Land/GA1#GA_Review clearly did not mean the author is a "Super mario effect" or someone in reference to it. And to be clear, I am not advocating deletion, but retargeting to the target users are actually seeking with this abbreviation. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is just slight confusion, then why not amend the distinguish template to say something like "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Mushroom effect, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo, or Wikipedia:EXPERT which can refer to Subject-matter expert(s)" instead of changing the redirect? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But here we have complete confusion, with no evidence anyone is using the shortcut correctly, per the above (thanks Randi Moth). It's clearly not a good shortcut for the current target. If there were just slight confusion, then updating the hatnote would be sufficient, but that is far from what we have here. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Then it seems the reversal of my comment is what is needed instead. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I find the evidence presented above to be much more convincing than claimes of presumptuousness. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Also create the WP:Subject-matter expert redirect per nom, so it is clear to someone why WP:SME is a shortcut to the proposed target. Jay 💬 09:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

List of United Progressive Alliance candidates in the Next Indian general election[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next general election seems like it would cause problems if there wasn't someone to update it for every election unless there was a bot or something to automate this. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Redirects from apps to Google Play[edit]

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 23:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two redirects from applications that were hosted on Google Play. They have always been redirects, with no article in the history. Neither are they mentioned in the article right now nor have they been when the redirects were made. Delete as not helpful to the reader. Randi🦋TalkContribs 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_20

Leave a Reply