This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2023.
Caroline of Nassau
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. Jay 💬 07:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
My comment withdrawn in light of Celia below.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 12:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:18, 14 August 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).
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 no consensus. After two relists, editors remain evenly divided amid various alternatives. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment That's a rather U.S. centric view of things. Supporters of
Bolsonaro would also qualify, and then there's the actual conspiracies that stole elections such as for
Tsikhanouskaya in Belarus --
67.70.25.80 (
talk) 04:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete or create a list article for these things. --
67.70.25.80 (
talk) 04:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment if this is kept as a redirect, it should target
Electoral fraud, where conspiracies are mentioned --
67.70.25.80 (
talk) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The only conspiracy theory explicitly mentioned there is the so-called
voting pencil conspiracy theory, which is pretty niche and of its time, even for British politics watchers. Although it definitely could be expanded to include other notable conspiracy theories.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect, delete, or create a list? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The target articles specifically refers to elections, and contains the analysis "Such theories tend to get more traction among election losers in society...".
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:17, 14 August 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).
To do the needful
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 no consensus. Editors are split between keep, retargeting to consolidate wiktionary redirects, and deleting. This close is without prejudice to attempts to consolidate the wiktionary redirect as a
WP:BOLD edit, as it is not clear that keep !voting editorrs necessarily oppose this. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per
WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia."
Fram (
talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: totally harmless, redirects are cheap.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – it's a bad idea to have loads of wiktionary redirects, but I think this one crosses the bar of "useful phrase with helpful Wiktionary entry". J947 † edits 00:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Do the needful, which is also a soft redirect to Wiktionary. We don't need multiple Wiktionary redirects for the same term. -
Eureka Lott 18:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete due to my belief that redirects to Wiktionary should be 1:1. An entry does not exist at
wikt:to do the needful. --
Tavix(
talk) 00:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:12, 14 August 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).
Doing the needful
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 no consensus. No consensus between the status quo and slight changes in target that from a reader's perspective would barely differ from the status quo. This close is without prejudice to someone cleaning up the chain of targets that the redirect points to, as it has not been discussed exhaustively. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per
WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia."
Fram (
talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: totally harmless, redirects are cheap.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This got a request at
WP:AFC/RC, and it was a proper target, which is my usual base for accepting (the request is enough evidence of use in most cases). I may need to be stricter on soft redirects per
WP:SSRT, then? (Good to know, for all the time I spend around redirects I think this is the first time I've created a soft redirect; semi-related question, can a redirect target a soft redirect, since you get stopped on the soft redirect page anyway?) Anyway, this was originally a request to redirect to
Indian English#Vocabulary, which the parent redirect of
Do the needful originally targeted, but I figured the wiktionary page was more useful for readers. I also based this off the recent RFD including
Swiping left and Swiping right, which were inflected forms that got turned into redirects. I'll abstain from this discussion for now. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 13:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – it's a bad idea to have loads of wiktionary redirects, but I think this one crosses the bar of "useful phrase with helpful Wiktionary entry". J947 † edits 00:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Do the needful, which is also a soft redirect to Wiktionary. We don't need multiple Wiktionary redirects for the same term. -
Eureka Lott 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
If not deleted, retarget to
wikt:doing the needful. I'm ambivalent otherwise, I don't really see much use for it. --
Tavix(
talk) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:12, 14 August 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).
Extractive industry
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.
This redirect currently sends searchers for the general term "extractive industry" to the article for "extractivism", a specific academic conception of extractive industry (and in some cases other industry as well), analagous to terms such as "prison-industrial complex". In my view the redirect is clearly inappropriate, but I am uncertain on what the solution should be and would appreciate thoughts.
Eldomtom2 (
talk) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I think as a stand it its good for now -- we could add the
Template:Redirect with possibilities to signal if there is a more diverse meaning. But if we needed to I could see a lightly referenced listical/dab page, like we did for:
Triple planetary crisis -- where its a cited stub, mostly intended to redirect people to a bunch of related articles (i.e. extractivism,
industrial agriculture,
mining, etc -- the challenge is that a well done list like that, requires a fair amount of nuance, and most of the content is not set up to describe those industries as extractive (part of the reason I didn't chose another redirect),
Sadads (
talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I think this option makes the most sense.--
Eldomtom2 (
talk) 17:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget per A7V2 and nom. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:14, 22 August 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).
FAUK
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.
Not mentioned at target, but from what I understand, it's typically a way to bypass censors that filter out the word "fuck".
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. FAUK is apparently
his initials, but I find this redirect not particularly useful. 〜Askarion✉ 19:37, 14 August 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).
Maison Hauer-King
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I cannot find an Enligsh Language source that calls the Hauer-King House the Maison Hauer-King and with the house being designed by a Czech architect and its location being England, I do not see a natural affinity to the French language, therefore I am proposing this be deleted under
WP:RLOTE.
TartarTorte 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It was made by accident and didn't notice the link was Maison Hauer-King instead of Hauer-King House.
[1] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cladeal832 (
talk •
contribs) 00:00, 16 August 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).
Eopharyngia
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Another circular link that does no-one any good.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 17:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
A7V2 (
talk) 01:32, 15 August 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).
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 💬 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This appears to be a
WP:XY issue where this could target either
Petroleum engineering and
Mining engineering. While
Petroleum engineering mentions Recruitment to the industry has historically been from the disciplines of physics, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and mining engineering but that's the only mention of mining engineering on that page other than within the name of a society.
TartarTorte 15:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
A7V2 (
talk) 01:34, 15 August 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).
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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no views expressed by others that were not keep (
WP:WITHDRAWN)
(non-admin closure)TartarTorte 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, consider it withdrawn. Someone can close this discussion now.
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as a name used by the
ABC,
Radio Free Europe, the
Royal United Services Institute, and a
full-length book by a Swiss former intelligence officer, all pro-Ukrainian. A web search finds multiple uses in pro-Russian/fake news sites too (demonstrating that both sides use this name for the full-scale war), but linking to them here would help spread disinformation.
Glades12 (
talk) 13:24, 14 August 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).
2022 Russian specal operation in Ukraine
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.
I could understand it if it was "special" but this redirect isn't going to be helpful to anyone. It had a grand total of zero views in the last 30 days.
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I really dislike the extreme inclusionism that takes place in RfD. It's a misspelling in the middle of a sentence with five words and four numbers. It's not plausible to get that particular misspelling often, and we don't have redirects for all other "plausible" misspellings that can take place in that sentence. We don't have
2022 ussian special operation in Ukraine or
2022 Russian special operation in Ukrine. The redirect has had zero views in 30 days. Nobody has needed it in over a month. In fact, this whole year it received nine views
[4]. Let's just delete it, we don't need the clutter.
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I've A7 tagged the redirect, as creator. Based on the rcat I added (alternative name, not misspelling), I don't believe I realized there was a typo in the redirect at the time. I believe I probably found a red link and created the redirect believing it to be appropriate.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:30, 14 August 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).
Human trait
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 07:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Once again, feels too broad for this one redirect to target, and the specific phrase only gets a hit in a citation in the article. The redirect was created in 2006 with the edit summary being temp redir, and there have been no edits since. I dove in a little –
Personality seems like a good target, but I'm not well-versed enough in the area to be too sure about it.
Trait is a DAB page and seems a bit iffy for this claim (someone who's searching human trait now needs to understand enough biology to pick the correct article). If anyone has more specific targets, those will probably be better. FYI, The talk page of
Psychology has been notified about this discussion. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Several sections in the
Human article talk about traits,
Human#Biology and
Human#Biological variation, especially. This is a really vague search term, and I'm not sure how useful it can be as a redirect. ―
Synpath 01:02, 16 August 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).
Trump Crime Family
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.
This redirect seems very POINTY and reflects a political POV. Also as only Donald Trump has been indicted, and not other family members, it seems inaccurate. LizRead!Talk! 04:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I saw this redirect in the Move log and was not aware of the existence of
Biden Crime Family and its nomination here when I posted this. LizRead!Talk! 04:57, 14 August 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).
Number transformation
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Target is far too broad, though I have no idea what this should be targeted to (it also may very well be another
WP:R#D10 case). It may be an existing concept (I'm not good with google and lacking in math knowledge), but certainly not a well-known one, so a redirect is probably justified if there's content to support it... though the only existing article with the string Number transformation is
Stirling number, which uses it in the compound "Stirling number transformation". FYI, the target page
Mathematics has been notified. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – this name is too vague/generic to clearly describe a particular transformation, and as far as I can tell not a common term in and of itself. Redirecting it to 'mathematics' is not useful to anyone. –
jacobolus(t) 08:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – per Jacobulus. I am unable to guess which mathemaical concept is intended by this phrase.
D.Lazard (
talk) 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to FunctionFunction (mathematics). I am guessing that the phrase "number transformation" refers to something that takes in a number as input and produces a number as output (the
google search results are very certainly unhelpful and scattered in this regard, but I don't think they are a strong indicator against this belief). To be fair, this isn't an exact match, because a "function" can have arbitrary input and output types, whereas a "number transformation" is only restricted to numbers. Still, since most examples of functions that people care about do deal with numbers, I think this is likely the best match we've got.
Duckmather (
talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC); amended 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually,
Function is a disambiguation page, so I'm refining my !vote to the article about mathematical functions.
Duckmather (
talk) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
comments I noticed some drafts redirected to the Mathematics. Would you like to delete these as well ? --
SilverMatsu (
talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I would say no – they're harmless, and have edit histories (though Maths Formulas may fall under G11, so I have no objections there). I could also get behind an R#D10 on High-speed mathematics, as there's a book by that title that may be notable eventually, and having a redirect in draftspace as opposed to a red link could be confusing.Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Scratch that, I forgot about G13. No objections, though I wouldn't bundle it here given that the only things shared are the target. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your comment. As for when this list meets the criteria for
WP:G13, I will ask
WT:AFC. --
SilverMatsu (
talk) 00:51, 22 August 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).
Nantucket ferry
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.
Keep. Redirecting to what, for reasons of balance, can only ever be a small section in
Nantucket wouldn't help readers much. As noted the regulatory role of the Steamship Authority is already mentioned in
Steamship Authority. If that section was expanded in relation to the regulated operators, the Steamship Authority article would provide a good "main article" for the section in the Nantucket one.
Davidships (
talk) 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I would support redirecting this to
Nantucket#Transportation since there are other ferry operators that offer ferry service to Nantucket such as Hy-Line, Freedom, and Seastreak. If this were the only ferry service on Nantucket, I would support keeping the redirect. Other than that, I think the target that Beland mentioned is the better one.
Interstellarity (
talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 03:11, 14 August 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).
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.
Delete. Per
WP:RNEUTRAL, a redirect from a non-neutral term should be kept if it represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. The way to do that would be by identifying and explaining the non-neutral term at the target, with references to reliable sources. "Biden Crime Family" is not even mentioned in the article, so it has not been established. From what I can tell, this looks to be a Trumpism so perhaps if kept it can be added to
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? --
Tavix(
talk) 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete – Yes, this term is used by a few politicians to smear the entire family of an opponent by using a Mafiaso term. There is no recognized “Biden Crime Family”. Just as there is no recognized “Trump Crime Family” and we do not do the bidding of partisan politicians by legitimizing a smear in an encyclopedia.
WP:G3 I'm OK with mention in the list of Trump nicknames article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 01:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Slanderous expression used by Biden opponents.
WWGB (
talk) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete. This should have been a quick and easy Speedy Delete. G10 would seem to apply.
Bgsu98(Talk) 03:29, 14 August 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).