Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2021.

Mud Volcano[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 15#Mud Volcano

Interim president[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 17#Interim president

I am speed[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 Speed Racer (soundtrack). signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and this is also a track from Speed Racer (soundtrack). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late keeping proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Sean Stephens above, Know Your Meme is specifically listed as an unreliable source at WP:RSP. Admittedly, I have never heard of Ahval news or their reliability, but even assuming they are reliable, I would say it needs more than just one article to warrant keeping the redirect. Link20XX (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS doesn't apply to RfD really. While RS are definitely weighted more heavily at RfD, our goal is to figure out what readers most likely are looking for, and sometimes that means looking at sites we'd never cite in an article. Know Your Meme is a good indicator of how a term is used, even if it's not a reliable source. After all, the most commonly-cited source at RfD is Google, which is very very much not an RS. (That said, I'm not sure how I actually want to !vote on this.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By that comment, I meant to address that Sean Stephens suggested mentioning it in the article with that as the source. I don't think that unreliable sources should be used as sources in the article. Link20XX (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware Know Your Meme is considered an unreliable source, but Tamzin does make a good point; it shows us how it's used and that should be enough in this context. I have found another (more reliable) source, so that's two. (They also use the phrase on merch, see here). Additionally, there's this and this (unsure about how reliable the second is though). I think that's enough justification to keep the redirect. It's a perfectly fine {{R from quote}}. I think an additional redirect should be created to the soundtrack, with the hatnote {{Redirect|I am speed|the song|I Am Speed (song)}}. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found another couple just before I went to close the tabs: Here and here (the latter of which calls it a "personal mantra"). Sean Stephens (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Just as with Murica, we have a conflict between a commonly used but less encyclopedic topic and an obscure but more encyclopedic topic. I think the best solution is to allow the reader a choice of what they want to read about. Keep as second choice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Speed Racer (soundtrack). There has been plenty of time for a mention to be added to Lightning McQueen, but there still isn't one. Such a disambiguation entry would therefore fail WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Just for the record, I definitely do intend on incorporating relevant information into the article; I decided it was best to wait and see if Link20XX would reply to my comments discussing the new sources, and to see if a consensus to add it in would arise from such a discussion. That being said, I'll revisit the article in the morning and see about adding it somewhere. Sean Stephens (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ROC at the Summer Olympics[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 ROC at the Olympics. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROC can refer to either Russian Olympic Committee or Republic of China, so retarget to ROC at the Olympics where the term is disambiguated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at its current target, because it has an explanatory hatnote that says exactly why the redirect is pointing where it is. Additionally, it is needed for use in {{team appearances list}} and {{infobox country at games}} to properly direct to the correct location. Additionally, we have no other (that I am aware of) redirects from "<IOC code> at the Olympics" redirects, so assuming that "ROC at the Olympics" refers to the Republic of China falls outside our normal protocols. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Note that the IOC code ROC used to refer to Republic of China at the Olympics, and has done so for far longer than Russia. Like USA (USA at the Olympics), ROC is both an IOC code (pre-1980) and a common abbreviation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not contesting that the code has been in use for other things for longer. I'm contesting that there is a single page that calls this redirect, and it's necessary for proper navigational purposes due to the way the underlying templates are coded; if there are zero other uses, and it's hidden in a piped link, what is the harm in having a "potentially confusing" link? Primefac (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what you linked as the current target in your !vote is not the actual current target. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, corrected. For reference the page originally linked was the only place where this redirect occurs; I was thinking of this redirect, which is not under contention due to said explanatory hatnote (since struck). Primefac (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. In reading coverage of the Olympics this year I've found myself confused by the abbreviation "ROC", which to me means "Republic of China" but apparently in this case means "Russian Olympic Committee". Let's not add to the confusion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where the confusion lies: this is a link that is both piped and also in an infobox, and so the only people who would likely even notice it's there are the ones who notice when a page is redirected to another. It was created purely to assist navigation from where it should be to where current community consensus feels is "the better location". Primefac (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what I'm missing here, but this seems like a pretty straightforward retarget. If "ROC at the Olympics" is a DAB (which it should be, for a clearly ambiguous initialism), I can't think of any good reason for "ROC at the Summer Olympic" to not be either its own DAB or a redirect to the broader one. (I'll note that this was relisted despite what I'd consider a decent consensus. So, reminder that any relisted XfD can be closed at any time.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What say you to my concerns that this redirect is use as a navigation aid on a single page (and has been since February 2021), and is also piped so that you don't even see the name itself? "ROC at the Olympics" in my opinion should not even exist as a dab (and only has for 10 days anyway!) because we do not have "<NOC code> at the Olympics" pages (other than this one); we wouldn't be creating something like "SWZ at the Olympics" as a DAB either. Do we need a hatnote at the target, much like the redirect pointing to the location of that single link? I just don't see the issue with a single convenience redirect that will break an infobox and potentially cause more confusion; if the target is changed to a dab, you will no longer be sent to a page about a general overview of independent athletes at the Olympics. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an addendum (and a ping) which I just realized, the piping of the wikilink implies that it sends one to the general overview of "independent athletes at the Olympics", a topic which is not covered in the DAB and would thus make the link fail WP:SURPRISE (and effectively prevent the current target from being reached). Primefac (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that something is being used by a template does not override naming conventions. Here there is no primary topic for "ROC" in the context of the (Summer) Olympics, so the term must be disambiguated. The template will need to be modified to work around this. If the problem is that Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games is not in the DAB, then it can of course be added to the DAB. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a naming convention for things like this; no other country in the history of the Olympics has a redirect on Wikipedia that includes the IOC code, so I don't know why all of a sudden (and I say that given the relatively new creation of the dab) it's a big deal. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, by naming conventions I meant the general policy framework around how we name things, which prohibits articles from occupying a space (or primary redirect) at a title for which they are not the primary topic, even if there are pragmatic reasons to do so. See Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 10#Requested move 8 February 2018, where there was no good disambiguator for the subject (she is not normally known by her middle name, and the various parenthetical disambiguators were unsuitable for one reason or another); it was proposed that she simply be called Sarah Brown per WP:IAR, but that proposal was rejected by consensus. Here there is even less reason for the Russian athletes to occupy the "ROC" title which they are not the primary topic of. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The length of time a redirect has remained at a particular target matters only in edge cases such as WP:ENGVAR disputes, not for clear-cut violations of disambiguation policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sole link to this redirect is generated automatically by Module:Team appearances list#L-269 (the teamName() function, called from line 349). Is there any other module/template that uses this function besides Template:Team appearances list? Ideally per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT the infobox should not use this redirect in the first place, as linking to redirects from navigation templates results in circular links (notice how "2020" in the infobox at Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics is a link instead of being bolded.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, it's being generated by {{infobox country at games}} via {{country alias}} and an {{#ifexist:...}} call on [[<country> at the <games>]]. With very small exception, these generate redirects, because pages like France at the Summer Olympics point to a generic "<country> at the Olympics" page. This page/template is not doing anything unusual with that respect (i.e. pointing to a redirect) because that's exactly how the template is designed. I should also note that these redirects are required because the template (as noted) points to the input games, so for something like "Asian Games" or "Commonwealth Games" does point directly at the target. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Just trying to wrap my head around this issue... Maybe I'm being slow, but why isn't it CNOSF at the Summer Olympics? I mean the France one is named after the country? There is Russia at the Summer Olympics and then there's ROC at the Summer Olympics so what's the difference? Is the ROC an exception from the general convention due to the whole Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics issue? If this redirect is retargeted, what exactly will break? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck is CNOSF?
    ROC's official designation for the 2020 Summer Olympics by the IOC is ROC. The infobox gives a link to the "overview" of a country's participation in whatever games is listed in the infobox (e.g. France at the Summer Olympics, China at the Asian Games, etc). In the case of ROC, the nominated redirect is what gets linked, and it points to Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games because that is the "overview" of independent athletes competing in the Olympics (they are not considered "Russia" because of sanctions etc). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I follow a bit better now. This is mostly outside my expertise but it came up on my watchlist so was just trying to see if I can understand the issue here, since I can perhaps sympathise with concerns of template issues.
    Some questions though. First: What exactly will break if this is retargeted? Second: Why does it point to the independent page rather than Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics (the current target seems to be about a different IOC code, whereas that page is about the ROC IOC code)? Third: Isn't it mostly a technicality that Russia is entered as "ROC"? Wouldn't it be more helpful to have navigation between the Russia articles rather than the "Independent Olympic Athletes at ..." articles (although that seems to be Tamzin's concern below)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First answer: in the infobox, there is an "overview" link next to participation. If this change goes through, it will point to a DAB which does not currently list the current target (surprise!).
    Second answer: it points there because ROC is a separate Olympic entity; it is not Russia and its medals are not counted towards Russia's official tally. The current target is a summary of all of these independent bodies, that is their primary connection and the reason they are all listed there. Also, it is on Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics; this is a year-less "...at the Summer Olympics" link. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, ROC is a common abbreviation of the Republic of China, just like DRC. The ROC abbreviation to refer Republic of China has been used less and less frequently but considering it at least as a historically commonly used term satisfy the creation of the disambiguation page. People might be thinking of the Russian Olympic Committee for "ROC" today since the Olympics were held recently but that would be RECENTISM to only consider that as the common name (not IOC code). There should not be a primary topic. Sun8908 Talk 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this falls outside of the expected "rules" for article titles, but I am asking for an exception to be made. This link is used on literally one page to facilitate one connection, and it's piped to boot so 99.9% of readers will never see the words "ROC at the Summer Olympics". Primefac (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: (Sorry for the repeated ping. Realized my first answer here wasn't very helpful.) There are times when exceptions are reasonable for technical reasons, typically if there's widespread reliance on a template's syntax, but here, as you say, the issue is only with one article. Looking at {{Infobox country at games}}, it seems to me that we could add an appearances_name_override parameter to the template, to be used by appearances at {{Infobox country at games/core}}, and avoid this issue. That said... should this be using appearances=auto? Are the Russian Olympic Committee athletes competing as the same entity as athletes from East Timor were in 2000? IMO, given that this is the Russian Olympic Committee's first time competing at the Olympics as a distinct entity, there shouldn't be anything under appearances at all. But if there should be, that can be worked out by tweaking the template. Or we could also add a appearances_header_override to say something like "Summer Olympics appearances by independent athletes" and solve both the content issue and the technical one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The /doc for that template needs to be updated, as the template doesn't use "auto appearances" any more...
    That being said, yes, I suppose I could add a parameter which will be used in only one instance to fix a "problem" that does not really need fixing, which is likely what will happen if this RFD closes as nominated. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Override params are often a bad idea, because they end up being misused/abused on a small scale to create unhelpful inconsistencies, and over time that adds up to a tracking cat of issues that nobody maintains. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of my concern, and the main reason why there is so much automation in that template. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Odea[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target article Odea does not mention "Odea". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to J. L. Odea, while the target dab does mention "Odea" in the lead there is only one article I can find that would appear on the list if added. If retargetted, a hatnote {{Redirect|Odea|the Irish surname and a list of notable people with it|O'Dea}} should be added. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hatnote as outlined by Thryduulf. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might want a hatnote to the much more popular Odia AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Odea is the plural of Odeum (see below) so there probably needs to be a disambiguation page. Paul August ☎ 00:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, disambiguation page drafted under the redirect Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that as a viable dab page given that it only disambiguates 1 article with the title and 1 misspelling of it. There is no advantage to that over a redirect to that one article with a hatnote pointing to O'Dea and Odia. I can see no justification of a link to Oden? Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I modified the draft DAB by removing (the unjustified) Oden, adding an entry for Odeum per Paul, and adding a Wiktionary reference. Jay (Talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Dea High School is a potential usage which wouldn't fit neatly into the surname page. An internal search retrieves at least one other person with the surname Odea (at Massachusetts House of Representatives' 15th Middlesex district) and a redlinked music producer, Odea Murphy (at Steady Groovin'). Something here could push us to a more viable disambiguation page... --BDD (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And alongwith O'Dea Castle, O'Dea can have its own DAB page. Jay (Talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Jay. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above, with thanks to Oiyarbepsy for drafting a dab. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Labour Party (UK) Conference[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no point to this redirect at all. If there is at some point another Labour Party conference that is not in the UK, then we can always rename this article. Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tot he[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely typo Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think the idea is that "tot he" is itself a typographical error for "to the", but the redirect got only 6 hits all last year and is not mentioned in the target article, so at best is useless. Station1 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seemingly random typo.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:NOTGAME[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 14#Wikipedia:NOTGAME

楊丞琳 Rainie Yang[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 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary mixed-script redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Liethuvim[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 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target (nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter); a web search did not reveal anything useful. If this is supposed to be a misspelling, it is a highly unlikely one. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2022 in American music[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 procedural close as converted to article. I'm not familiar enough with how we handle these sorts of articles to know if this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation, though presumably the case for deletion becomes weaker with each passing day, eventually reaching a point where it's all but impossible. In the meantime, if AfD or other regular procedures revert this to a redirect, so be it. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no subcategory on American music (contrast Category:2021 in American music), meaning that this is only helpful to readers if they're willing to browse through the subcategories and guess which pages are about the U.S. It might be reasonable for 2022 in music (currently a redlink) to redirect here, but even there that seems like it would run afoul of WP:REDLINK. Lots of concert dates, album releases, etc., have been announced for 2022. And in my opinion XNRs to categoryspace should be reserved for cases where there's no chance of an article ever existing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, bad XNR. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have nothing to add to Tamzin's reasoning. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article now exists at this title. Unless it's reverted back to the redirect, this can be speedily procedurally closed. I'd do so myself but I'll wait for someone uninvolved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ohio County (Virginia)[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 procedural close. There is no page with this title. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previously published article on the 1778-1787 county, titled "Ohio County (Virginia)", on the NORTH BANK of the Ohio River, with adequate citations from reliable sources, is lost to public view by an automatic link to Ohio County, West Virginia on the SOUTH BANK of Ohio River.
- The LOST article had substantial French-Speaking settlements at Cahokia and Vincennes. These together with Revolution veteran settlement were ceded by Virginia to the Northwest Territory in 1787. Please help to recover and reinstate the information as a separate article. With apologies for my imperfect procedure . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot. I would like it restored. I used the George Rogers Clark 1778 "Ohio County (Virginia)" article - no redirect - in a link in the American Revolutionary War perhaps 100? days ago in narrating the ARW "Western Theater". As I remember, I made several (4-5) contributions at the beginning of this year, but there is no record that I can now find in my "Contributions" list, searching on the term "Ohio". I had hoped to find the previous article and simply resubmit it as a 'new' article with a copy-paste of the archived version I might find there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheVirginiaHistorian: There's no record of there ever having been an Ohio County (Virginia) article, nor a redirect there for that matter. I see you've already contacted a few users to figure out what happened here, which is the approach I was going to recommend. Since there's no redirect here being contested, I'm going to close this on procedural grounds. If you do create an article on Ohio County, Virginia, you can just overwrite Ohio County, Virginia, as is standard practice when turning redirects into articles; no need for RfD. (If you're copying a previous version from some other page, of course, remember to give attribution.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mooski[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 moot per below. ✗plicit 12:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as above. In addition, these two singers do not associate much. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's rarely a good reason to redirect one living person's name to another's. It both misleads and potentially surprises our readers, and opens up an array of potential BLP issues depending on who the people in question are. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Track Star (song)[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 moot. The redirect has been converted into an article. ✗plicit 12:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Track Star" is a song by American rapper Mooski. It shouldn't be redirected to a guest appearance by Coi Leray. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since there's no article on Mooski, this is a reasonable place to redirect to, as it contains information about the song. Should an article on Mooski be written at some point, this can be retargeted there without need for another RfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of fictional "hunter-killer" references[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 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect to disambiguation page that does not make sense in the context of the page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirect is 12 years old, but was only an article for 14 hours. Pageviews since 2015 clock in at around the standard background noise (85). Delete as an implausible search term. (If kept, this would probably be best retargeted to Hunter-killer team.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Taco sauce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 14#Taco sauce

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_7&oldid=1138583049"