Trichome

thcscience_admin

May 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 18, 2024.

West Ardougne[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. A section had been added at RuneScape#Gielinor. Retargeting and withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This location in RuneScape is not described in the target article. A reader is better served by not having been redirected there. WP:RFD#DELETE #8 and 10. Викидим (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a pretty major city within the game, and is part of a major plot, if we're going to discuss this redirect, we might as well pull Ardougne into it as well, heck what about Varrock. and Lumbridge? Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the use of these redirects? The text of RuneScape does not even mention these major cities. A reader, either already reading some text about the RuneScape or performing a search related to this game, will simply waste: a click to go in, a search within the page, and a click to return back feeling duped. Викидим (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally wouldn't be opposed to a seperate Gielinor article (the game's world), especially since there's multiple media linked including Runescape, Old School Runescape. Betrayal at Falador etc. then these cities would be mentioned and redirected to the new article. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A section on the Gielinor in RuneScape will be just fine to validate the redirects. IMHO in order to justify stealing someone's attention Wikipedia should offer at least some information at the target of a redirect. That said, I also happen to think that Gielinor might be notable on its own: I had found a significant amount of genuine scholarship on the subject. Викидим (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now created a Gielinor article, and would be all for a Redirect to the new article, please feel free to help add references, I've included a list of related media. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article got swiftly WP:BLARed. bu I have moved its text into RuneScape itself. Now there is a good target, changing the redirect and withdrawing the nomination. Викидим (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Blagger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30#Blagger

Freaky deaky Dutch[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. Jay 💬 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible WP:FANCRUFT Okmrman (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. The phrase is spoken in the movie Goldmember but it is implausible as a reasonable redirect, as people familiar with the phrase will undoubtedly be familiar with the film name. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

ANDSF[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30#ANDSF

Dark (MCC cricketer) and others[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 14:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were articles created in 2017 by (blocked user) BlackJack, and PRODed by @Blue Square Thing: in 2019, but redirected by @Andrew Davidson:. The names of the subjects of the redirects do not appear in the target article, and are never likely to, and do not appear in List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1787–1826) because that list is for first-class players, which these apparently weren't. It's confusing to have a redirect to a target with zero substantive information about the subject so I recommend delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked each person in CricketArchive's database to check whether any additional information has been added about them, but in no case has anything that might be able to suggest notability been added. There are still no forenames, dates or so on. None of them played first-class cricket either. There are, by the way, three players simply called Warren who have played non-first-class matches for MCC, two Markhams, two J Lewis', three Jones', three Jacksons and two Cookes, so I'm not sure how helpful such redirects would be. If I came across these articles today I'd be likely to PROD them still, so, unsurprisingly, I'd suggest deleting the redirects. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of them appear to have played FC cricket for the MCC, so there is no suitable list to redirect to, so delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all not mentioned at target, and not mentioned elsewhere since they didn't play FC cricket for MCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"[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 Think of the children. Jay 💬 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A variant of the title without quotes, What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children !?, redirects to Think of the children (which prominently mentions Helen Lovejoy). Additionally, I don't think redirects surrounded by quotes often exist here. Xeroctic (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another variant, with minor typographical differences, "What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children?!" (notice the reversed interrobang in the last sentence) redirects to Think of the children as well. Xeroctic (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Valéncia[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 01:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating on behalf of Agpshi, who nominated this redirect via PROD with the following rationale: The name with an acute accent is not used either in academic or official sources and, in spite of some recent attempts at making it official (stemming from one of the parties currently governing the city, Vox), it has never been so and it is unlikely that they will succeed. CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – First of all, why was the redirect target changed? As far as I know that shouldn't happen until the discussion is closed, should it? Ok I see this is standard for rfd.
Second, the question here isn't whether Valéncia is some kind of official name. It's a name that is in use, and even if you consider it to be a misspelling, some people are likely to type it in when looking for Valencia. So it needs to be a redirect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Valéncia" itself is an historical name. It's also mentioned on LOTS of Valencian articles as well as books written in Valencia. Here you have a prime proof of this, coming from a Valencian Book Editorial (L'Oronella) = https://www.oronella.com/botiga/histories-de-valencia/
I have found this 1996 source from the University of La Rioja based on 1850-1930 information, that is already mentioning this name: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6888722
Same mentioned in the University of Valencia Scientifical Production website = https://producciocientifica.uv.es/documentos/6409378dc654e74950596fde
The official Spanish Government Judiciary and Justice Courts website (MUGEJU) directly writes it as Valéncia/Valencia, and this is an official government site, ruled by Partido Socialista Obrero Español which is the opposing party to both regional ruling PP and even more Vox. Source: https://www.mugeju.es/que-es-mugeju/nuestras-oficinas/delegaciones-provinciales/valenciavalencia
Without mentioning tons of many more reliable sources, historical sources... And without mentioning that all Valencian regionalism parties and associations always write Valéncia, as it's also written in the Norms of El Puig standarized Valencian, which is part of the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture, the oldest Valencian language institution (much older than the actual Academia Valenciana de la Llengua which was created in 1998 and RACV in 1915) so the page Valéncia should include the redirect to the page of Valencia.
And not only that, but also written text that Valéncia is a correct form of spelling Valencia in Valencian. As both Valéncia and València are accepted. Even an inform from the actual AVL (the organisation that regulated the Valencian language) from 2007 said that the proper Valencian name of Valencia is Valéncia: https://www.esdiario.com/valencia/138023357/avl-defendio-acento-cerrado-valencia.html
I am Galician and I have been living in Valencia for a good amount of years. I'm neutral over this, but I do actually know quite a lot about the local and regional history. There is no benefit from trying to hide out what a lot of people think and what also is backed up by many RSs. I have deleted myself the word "Valéncia" from the lead of the page Valencia and I wrote by myself that's officially called València (check my history) but still, we can't delete the will of many people, especially when it's properly sourced even with academical sources.
I hope you will take a proper look at this as I've spent 30 minutes writing this. Thanks. LucenseLugo (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the AVL has never accepted "Valéncia" as a proper spelling. As you can check from reading the newspaper beyond the headline, that was just a personal statement by Abelard Saragossà (a great academic, on the other hand). So you are wrong: "Valéncia" is not a correct form and it is not accepted by the AVL.
The RACV may be as old as they want, but that does not legitimate them. The Society of Homeopaths, for example, is about the same age. To begin with, the ortographic rules developed by the RACV are from 1979, whereas the rules employed by the AVL are from 1932 (Norms of Castelló). And, in terms of usage, it should be quite clear that you cannot compare. L'Oronella, which you have mentioned, is the only secessionist editorial currently active in Valencia, they are highly linked to the RACV and their production is scarce (153 books between 1999 and 2005).
In the second place, the proposal did stem from Vox, insofar as the mayor of Valencia (PP) wanted the name to be changed to València/Valencia, instead, as you can see here: https://valenciaplaza.com/vox-impone-al-pp-el-acento-cerrado-en-el-nombre-de-valencia-y-desata-la-primera-pelea-entre-ediles
In the third place, "Valéncia" is not a historical name. It did not have an accent back when accents still did not exist and the only accepted name ever since Valencian was made official again is "València".
Four, the University of Valencia and the one you think is from the University of La Rioja sources are the same. I should mention that the La Rioja source is not from the University of La Rioja, but, just as any Spanish academic knows, from Dialnet, an bibliographic database hosted by the University of La Rioja. And Producció Científica UV takes its data from Dialnet (I know it because I work there). So the source is not from that university, but from whoever authored the article (in this case, Joaquín Azagra).
And, highly related to my fourth point, that source (the only academic source you provided) seems to be a misspelling based on the fact that Spanish does not have a grave accent. Check the index of the book in which that chapter is contained: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=9785
As you will see in that index, whoever transcribed the name of the article made many accent-related mistakes. He writes "origens" instead of "orígens" and "demográfica" instead of "demogràfica", for example (and those two accents are the same no matter whether you use the Valencian official rules or the alternative rules employed by the RACV).
Finally, I suggest you take a look at the introduction to the book in which that chapter is contained, which is accessible online and which was authored by Azagra himself: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/HistoriaIndustrial/article/download/63111/84922
If you are willing to accept that that book chapter supports your claims about "Valéncia" being an academically acceptable name, I guess you will also accept that "Valencian Country" is an appropriate name for the Community, right? But, still, you have in the past called a source biased only because it used that name (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1180807282). So I guess you are no longer willing to use that book chapter as a source.
So the only source you are left with is MUGEJU, which is not, as you claim, "the Judiciary and Justice Courts website" but just a mutuality for the members of the judiciary.

--Agpshi (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't read all of that.
Here we are voting to keep it or deleting it.
:At the moment 3 of us voted to keep it and you are the only one who wants to delete it, as you made this. Please stick to the voting. LucenseLugo (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is not a vote, but a discussion to determine WP:CONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, is there some way to find out how many people searched on this term before the redirect was in place? If it's "none" then I could be convinced we don't need it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the stats are only recorded for pages after creation. It takes a few days after creation before the stats become a reliable indicator of usage patterns (my theory is because of hits by new page patrollers) and being at RfD also generates hits so we won't get relevant usage figures until a few weeks after this discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standard {{R from modification}}. We don't care what the official or correct name is, all that matters is whether a term will plausibly be used to search for the target, and given the campaign to make this official that is unquestionably true here (regardless of the outcome of that campaign). Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely {{R from misspelling}} of the native València, plus the fact that it has been proposed recently as a name of its own. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Chaotic Enby. The claim that it is most commonly used by an ideologically-motivated organization is not a reason to delete. Also, it is a plausible misspelling of the more-historical València, which has no other plausible targets. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Spelling in use by a group promoting its use, regardless of whether they are correct or not, succeed or not, are politically motivated or not, etc etc etc... if it's being promoted, it's being used. The target is unambiguous. That's a perfectly valid redirect purpose. Fieari (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Medicare’s problems[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 14:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was an article for less than an hour. While the Medicare (United States) article does mention "Medicare's problems" relating to fiscal policy, they are not the same "problems" ("coverage limitations") mentioned in the WP:BLARed article. Additionally, "Medicare" may also refer to the Canadian and Australian systems, each of which surely has its own problems. I think this is a figurative WP:XY case, and this redirect should be deleted; there are just too many things its title could mean. (Note: the apostrophe is a curly one, not the straight one ordinarily used on Wikipedia.) PleaseStand (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of the redirect; your arguments/explanations are all valid.
I also support deletion of the created article, it is **ALL** Original Research WP:OR / opinion, with all the claimed problems sourced to ONE source: the US government's Medicare explanation of benefits. All these problems are opinions of the new editor who created that article. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the history should not be kept (per Avatar317), the title is vague, and there is not enough traffic to keep a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya[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. Jay 💬 10:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling of Meghalaya. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gastrosexual[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 25#Gastrosexual

Flexisexual[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 redirect to Wikt:flexisexual. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:flexisexual or sexual fluidity. This section doesn't exist or was changed nor is it mentioned there (anymore). --MikutoH talk! 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albert Rosenfeld(rugby league player)[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 14:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this redirect has too significant of an edit history to be speedily deleted for WP:X3. However, the page history doesn't look that substantive and it's just someone trying to make a page for a topic that already had a page. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it was an article for less than a month in 2006/2007 and doesn't appear to contain any content not in the target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment content was merged in special:diff/99335323 ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. We don't know why Tricolours created this duplicate page 15 minutes after making an edit at the original page. Perhaps they wanted to work on their own version to merge with the original later, and did not know the concept of drafts. In any case the user has accreditation at the original article. Jay 💬 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Parser function[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 target both to Help:Magic words. Jay 💬 10:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects should probably target the same page. I'm neutral on which option to pick. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the latter to Help:Magic words#Parser functions. Its title does not unambiguously refer to either target, whether the list of parser functions available here (both words are capitalized) or those provided by the ParserFunctions MediaWiki extension (there is a space between the words). The first target is nevertheless better, because it provides useful information regarding this particular site that the reader may be looking for, as well as a link to the same MediaWiki.org page in the section hatnote (no extra click versus a soft redirect). PleaseStand (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

American actress[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 Lists of American actors. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems oddly and overly specific. I feel like we wouldn't want to make a habit of having nationality-plus-profession redirects to articles on professions that do not have an affinity for nationalities (which most do not). I note, by the way, that American actor redirects to Lists of American actors. BD2412 T 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors. Much more useful to readers than the current target. Thefficacy (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on creating a mini-dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors to match American actor. No real opposition to making a mini-dab, but I'm not particularly swayed by the idea, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2024_May_18

Leave a Reply