Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2023.

Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)

Three-Body - TV series

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 remain divided on whether WP:PANDORA is a reasonable basis for deleting a redirect that has already been created. signed, Rosguill talk 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Pointless (just one week old) redirect per WP:RDAB, WP:PANDORA...are there any more of these out there? 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 06:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Update: also nominating all the ones of the same form thanks to the finding below. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • To the nominator's question, I spot Some Like It Hot - musical, Tom Atkins - actor, Prey - 2022 film, Voyage - ABBA album, Don't Look Up - 2021 film, Happy New Year - ABBA, Friendly Fascism - book, Spacecraft bus - JWST, and Spacecraft Bus - JWST, all by the same creator. That goes back to November 2021; I imagine there's more past that. Will leave it to the nominator to decide bundling etc. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks a bunch for checking! I've gone ahead and added those to the nomination. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Tamzin and Rhododendrites: (and others) - As OA of the RDs - no problem whatsoever re the final decision re these RDs - should note (as before at User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects) the following:
    Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less " WP:Redirects" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending ")" and/or ending "?" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the " Village Pump" some years ago ( see " Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped ")" in titles?" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these days
In any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Add - If interested, I recently (3/20/2023) posted the related WikiProblem (bug?) of dropping WikiArticle Title endings and creating WP:RDs as a recommended possible Solution (and other related Solutions) on the Village Pump - Technical at the following => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - as well as - at => User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Thryduulf. Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions, and these redirects don't seem to be actively harming the encyclopedia. Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 19:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per Thyrduulf. They're possibly useful and unambiguous. I'm not seeing how it would be beneficial to delete these titles. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per Shhhnotsoloud; this would justify the creation of hundreds of thousand of needless redirects like Palestine - region or Macedonia - ancient kingdom. Even putting aside the fact that this isn't the proper use of a hyphen, readers who will actually use these will no doubt be a small minority. Hell, if these deserve to be kept, then we should go ahead and make spaced and unspaced versions, hyphened or correctly em-dashed versions, the list could go on forever. The point of redirects is not to encompass every single term that one could ever possibly search. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • And that mass creation would be bad, because ... ? I mean, I said above that these aren't altogether too helpful to create, but this whole pandora thingy never pans out. If someone does, by chance, start partaking in such a humongous task they'll probably be pointed to WT:Redirect, where we might say "do something more helpful, say {{ R from sort name}}s or all lowercase titles, or perhaps some smaller endeavour". The only manner in which this could plausibly occur is through a bot mass creating and maintaining this sort of redirect, which has a greater benefit than cost. J947 † edits 08:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Because it clutters Search. As the essay says "Redirects are not always needed. They can sometimes be a burden, and Wikipedia has a very good internal search engine." We don't need redirects that just second-guess Search. If "Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions" they'll find it with Search. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Ignoring the fact that we're just waiting for a NOSEARCH magic word or somesuch to be implemented, that's not an argument that this redirect might be precedent for the creation of other redirects. That's an argument that the redirect itself is bad. J947 † edits 23:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • But would it require mass creation? This strikes me as something that shouldn't be created, but shouldn't be deleted if created. {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I also don't think that search-cluttering is an issue in Vector 2022 or the mobile skin, unlike in Vector 2010, so that should be less of a concern than before. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:15, 2 April 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).

Digvijay Chautala

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 Digvijay Singh Chautala. Salvio giuliano 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

redirect should be deleted -- name of a candidate in the previous election, no notability, no relevance, very confusing that the name of a private individual redirects to a page about an election Fishing Publication ( talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 26 March 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).

Life Before Earth

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. While plausible as a search term, most editors opposed suggested potential targets as not sufficiently supported by sources in relation to the search term. signed, Rosguill talk 06:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as unhelpful/unclear; not what this article is about. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as it is a wrong title as well. Earth itself predates the existence of life, so there's no "life before Earth". There is in fact a theory that life may started elsewhere and then came here ( Panspermia), but the relation is too convoluted to be a workable redirect to that article either. It's, in fact, a side theory: the main panspermia theory is that life may survive in the vacuum under certain conditions and meteorites may carry it from one celestial body to another (from elsewhere to Earth, but also from Earth to other places). Cambalachero ( talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm also fine with refining to Extraterrestrial life#Characteristics, the section mentioned by Scyrme. Jay 💬 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Staff (2023). "Definition – Abiogenesis". Wiktionary. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  2. ^ Staff (2023). "Definition – Abiogenesis". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  3. ^ Sharov, Alexei A. (2006). "Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life". Biology Direct. 1: 17. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-1-17. PMC  1526419. PMID  16768805.
  4. ^ Sharov, Alexei A.; Gordon, Richard (2013). "Life Before Earth". arXiv: 1304.3381v1 [ physics.gen-ph].
  5. ^ Sharov, Alexei A.; Gordon, Richard (2018). "Life Before Earth". Habitability of the Universe Before Earth: Life Before Earth. Astrobiology Exploring Life on Earth and Beyond. Academic Press. pp. 265–296. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811940-2.00011-3. ISBN  9780128119402. S2CID  117048600. Retrieved 25 March 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "Life Before Earth" with its particularly phrasing and capitalisation is formated like the title of a work not a Wikipedia article for a general topic. Searching the exact phrase "Life+Before+Earth" I was able to find a number of articles with that title, suggesting it is plausible that a searcher is actually looking for a proper noun not a general article about abiogenesis or panspermia. Since Wikipedia doesn't have content about any of these works, the title should remain vacant.
That said, "abiogenesis" ordinarily refers to the origin of life on Earth not in general, and this is reflected in the content of Abiogenesis the vast majority of which is concerned with terrestrial abiogenesis. Of-course "abiogenesis" could encompass extraterrestrial abiogenesis and the article does mention panspermia, but it is not the main topic of that article. The article is predominantly concerned with Earth and the conditions that made life on Earth possible, with even extraterrestrial factors being mentioned in the context of their effect on the Earth.
Furthermore, the phrase "life before Earth" does not necessarily indicate that a reader is looking for anything about where life originated whether abiogenically or not. It says nothing about where life originated or how, only when. Perhaps the searcher is interested in whether life was possible on other planets before Earth became habitable, not necessarily even in the context of panspermia but simply whether it could even have existed indepenently long before the Earth was inhabited. That's a reasonable thing to ask, even without getting into fringe theories. As far as I'm aware, there is no article or section that deals with that particular question. With these considerations neither abiogenesis nor panspermia make good targets for even the lowercase version.
If the lowercase is created, my preference would be for it to point to Earliest known life forms, an article which mentions abiogenesis and panspermia but isn't narrowly focused on 'origin of life' topics, rather it's concerned with the broader question of the earliest life (a redirect to Earliest known life forms). – Scyrme ( talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jay: Although the term "panspermia" does only occur in an image caption, the actual concept is discussed in the text following the sentence begining The possibility that.... If you feel this is undue, then perhaps it should be removed.
That said, taking a closer look at Extraterrestrial life it seems that article does cover the particular question I mentioned: during a habitable epoch when the universe was only 10–17 million years old. Life may have emerged independently at many places throughout the universe, as it arose on Earth roughly 4.2 billion years ago through chemical processes. ( Extraterrestrial life § Characteristics)
In light of that, I now prefer Extraterrestrial life for the lowercase. – Scyrme ( talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, this paper uses the term Abiogenesis in an extraterrestrial sense. "Panspermia assumes that, at least once, life originated in the Universe as a result of the natural processes (abiogenesis) but does not address the problem how this original life began." Cambalachero ( talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
My point was not that "abiogenesis" refers exclusively to the origin of life on Earth, only that it usually refers to the origin of life on Earth. In the past "abiogenesis" was used in reference to the origin of life on Earth, a historically controversial question, and given that no extraterrestrial life is known to exist that remains the context in which is it usually discussed outside the speculative field of astrobiology, a relatively young and small field compared to fields like natural history and evolutionary biology. Of-course there are sources that use it in reference to extraterrestrial life in the context of astrobiology (like that one); I never intended to suggest otherwise. – Scyrme ( talk) 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if this were to exist, it should not point to abiogenesis. This is not about non-biological origin of life, it is about life before Earth. That's not a related statement. Extraterrestrial life would be the only valid option as a target. Panspermia would require that life spreads, also not a related statement. A time-like curve and resolve the lack of a non-biological origin to life. -- 65.92.244.249 ( talk) 04:26, 27 March 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).

Secondary Period

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. There was agreement that disambiguation will be helpful, but it was not clear how the page will look like. A better location for the disambiguation was proposed to be the lowercased Secondary period, which was not part of this nomination. The discussion also did not resolve any potential inconsistencies between the lowercased title and the title under discussion, if this is to be turned into a disambiguation. No prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page; or a fresh nomination of the lowercased title, or a bundling of titles, including the addition of Primary period to the mix. Jay 💬 08:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as misleading; the Mesozoic is an era, not a period. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

 Comment: I do not support or oppose the nomination, but I *do* believe it should be handled in the same manner as Secondary period (which redirects to the same place, Mesozoic) and Primary period (which redirects to Paleozoic). Jdaloner ( talk) 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Disambiguate/Keep – Periods within the Mesozoic era do have synonymous names as secondary periods, and there is evidence of "secondary period" being used as a uniting term for all three, such as these Google Books results: [1] [2] [3]. Since its use is verifiable, this is a plausible search term to lead to the Mesozoic era. Misleadingness is not a problem here, since the target is not unexpected. {{ R from incorrect name}} can be used, however.
However, it is ambiguous. On Wikipedia, this term is commonly used for star brightness cycles based on results of a search. Variable star may work as a link in that case, though I'm not sure whether it is covered properly there. Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target. It does seem plausible for Mesozoic to be the primary topic, making a DAB page unnecessary, though. Randi Moth ( talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
"Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target."
Secondary education itself does not refer to its topic as such, and I've never encountered "secondary period" as a reference to secondary education. Searching around for "secondary+period" most of my results appeared to be related to finance/law (Google, Bing), astronomy/space (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect) or various periodic phenomena in biology (ScienceDirect; usually alongside references to an "initial period"), not education. Education seems like a stretch to me. Did you find something I didn't? – Scyrme ( talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Found it be used in Education in Thailand and assumed it to be more common. Of course, Wikipedia articles themselves are not a good indicator whether this is common or not. If using "secondary period" for education is implausible, then keeping the redirect to Mesozoic is fine with a hatnote added linking to the variable star cycles per WP:ONEOTHER. Randi Moth ( talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Looking at Education in Thailand, it could just be a particular editor's choice of wording, perhaps to avoid confusion as elsewhere it uses "level" not "period" ("elementary and secondary levels") but at the particular instance where "period" is used "level" has been used in reference to a particular qualification ("Three levels of TVE"). – Scyrme ( talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambig. Google searches show three distinct uses, geological time (possibly it's an outdated term) [4] [5] [6], education [7] [8], and something related to (the law of) financial leasing [9] [10]. I can't immediately find the term mentioned in a finance-related article and don't understand it anywhere near enough to determine if there is an appropriate article, but this has the strongest case for being primary topic. Also prominent in search results are partial title matches for Long secondary period variable stars which might make a good see-also. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A draft for a disambiguation page would be helpful, since I'm not sure what articles would be linked for each sense. Additionally, what would be done about Secondary period (which has the same target) and Primary period? The better location for a disambiguation page would be the lowercase form, since proposed entries aren't all proper nouns. Additionally, if only Secondary Period is disambiguated, with Secondary period and Primary period being left as they are, it would introduce inconsistency, which could produce surprises for some readers. – Scyrme ( talk) 14:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 26 March 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).

Color Lines (Loop)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Color Lines (Loop)

When Quads Won't Leave

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#When Quads Won't Leave

Queen’s Slipper

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, Rosguill talk 03:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:31, 26 March 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).

Public display of dead

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. Salvio giuliano 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 07:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 08:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Public display of the dead" or "public display of dead bodies" would be expected; without the "the" (or "bodies") this is phrased like a search query not a title, so let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme ( talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree with Tamzin. (Also the gibbeting article does include gibbeting as a form of execution - not strictly 'display of dead' - but where initially live individuals eventually die from starvation or thirst, and their bodies are then left to decompose). Paul W ( talk) 16:41, 28 March 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).

Public display

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. Salvio giuliano 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including Publication § United States and maybe Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 07:25, 26 March 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).

Luka magic

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. Salvio giuliano 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

All references in the target article to 'magic' refer to Magic Johnson - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:56, 26 March 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).

Elijah Bynum

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. Salvio giuliano 07:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Bynum has now directed two movies, the other being Magazine Dreams. The redirect is unhelpful and confusing for readers. Nardog ( talk) 04:01, 26 March 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 terrorists

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 List of designated terrorist groups. Salvio giuliano 07:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The redirect target is not a list of terrorists, nor does it contain a list of terrorists. Either this should be deleted per WP:REDYES to make room for an article, or it could reasonably be retargeted to List of designated terrorist groups as {{ r to related topic}}. I favor the latter option over the former. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:01, 26 March 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).

Κλέφτης

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. Salvio giuliano 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This is the English Wikipedia. It's nonsense to keep a soft redirect in another language. Proposing deletion or transwikifying to elwiki. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:26, 26 March 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).
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_26&oldid=1187780340"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE