Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2024.

Panther Memorial Stadium, McBee[edit]

No longer mentioned at the target after a 2012 merge/redirect AfD closure. A high school's stadium does not need to be a redirect to the school if the stadium has no discussion at the target page, although the history may need to be dealt with. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on dealing with the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Moving Ice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Sea of Moving Ice

Jimmy Patterson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Jimmy Patterson

Doofenshmirtz the pharmacist[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 💬 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a pharmacist and the page makes no mention of him being a pharmacist or having a medical career otherwise. 0 page views in the last year, not linked from any Wikipedia pages. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:30, 9 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).

"badger boys state"[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 💬 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "delete" it was at this title for about 31 minutes in 2010. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Crouch, Swale. Traffic has been minimal and the page was moved to the correctly-formatted Badger Boys State shortly after it was created. - Eureka Lott 20:40, 8 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).

Peodeiktophilia[edit]

Originally created as a redirect to exhibitionism before being retargeted to anasyrma, this term is mentioned at neither of the articles in question and is not something that we have good coverage on at the moment, with the only mention of this word anywhere on Wikipedia being at the List of paraphilias. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect back to exhibitionism, since this term apparently refers to sexual arousal or gratification arising from exposing one's genitals (some definitions seem to specify male genitals), while anasyrma seems to be primarily a jesting or ritual exposure of genitalia (frequently women's) in a religious context or to ward off evil. As with all nominations dealing with "the term is not mentioned in the target article", it would be a good idea to find somewhere to mention and define it within the article, thereby making renomination less likely. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Peo" (from wikt:πέος) refers to male genitals in Greek so those definitions are more etymologically correct. In any case, exhibitionism is obviously a more appropriate target due to the "-philia" suffix. Nickps (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has yet been added to Exhibitionism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Disey movies[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 💬 21:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling, recently created. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 7 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).

Law of fives[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. There is agreement that the relevant section or content at the target should be restored. Jay 💬 07:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [1]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but restore if the secondary sources mentioned above are used to write about the Law of Fives in the main article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (and restore) Per Lunamann above. Fieari (talk) 00:20, 9 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).

Stone Table:[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 💬 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ending with ":" is not a plausible search term. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what the policies are anymore, but according to the edit history, it's not there to catch a search term, it's there to catch an external link. —Toby Bartels (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Toby Bartels:, thanks for commenting on this discussion. If you say you don't know what the policies are anymore, while that's totally fine on its own, perhaps it's high time to turn in the admin bit at WP:BN. Thank you for your 22 years of service. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K4 and WP:R#K5. Unambiguous, cheap, and catches an external link. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per smart kitten. Fieari (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the name of the subjects, implausible as a search term for readers using Wikipedia, which is who Wikipedia caters to. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to clean up mistakes made on external web sites. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also an old redirect. I believe WP:RFD#HARMFUL strictly applies... Fieari (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Age doesn't exclude it from my stance that "It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to clean up mistakes made on external web sites.". The fact that the redirect has existed so long just shows it took a while for this to get caught; there shouldn't be any statute of limitations on getting rid of problematic redirects, and Wikipedia is not a historical archive of erroneous links someone made on some website decades ago. Now that we finally found the redirect, best get rid of the redirect for the reasons I've stated. Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not Wikipedia’s responsibility to do so, but I’d argue that it doesn’t harm the encyclopedia if such redirects are created (and, therefore, I’d argue that there isn’t any reason to delete it). I would have to disagree with the notion that this redirect is problematic to the project. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. 2012 is not an old-old redirect. There is no evidence that this has ever been a popular external link. Pageviews since 2015 indicate that there's been zero spikes indicative of external usage, and this redirect receives an average of 0 views a day (assessing all history since 2015, when pageviews were first calculated). Implausible errors made outside of Wikipedia is not a reason to abandon our own deletion criteria, regarding the removal of implausible errors on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it has an external link doesn't make it justified. For all we know, it could be a random comment on a dead website. Okmrman (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re. [j]ust because it has an external link doesn't make it justified, WP:R#K4 specifically refers to keeping redirects that have existed for some time in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 00:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may have directed visitors from an external link at one time, but it hasn't served that purpose in a long time. It has never averaged more than five page views per month for as far back as the pageview counts go. Between April 2020 and April 2024, it had 20 views. The redirect from this typo isn't filling a need. - Eureka Lott 03:00, 11 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:Racism[edit]

Shouldn't they have the same target? --MikutoH talk! 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I can't think of a better target for each. It makes sense for WP:RACIST to redirect to the policy on contentious labels; I don't think racism is relevant to that policy in the same way. It wouldn't make sense for WP:RACIST to redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. It would be better if there were a policy WP:Racism could redirect to, but I couldn't find one that was relevant and useful. MClay1 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mclay1, Ivanvector, and Crouch, Swale: no policy, but an essay: wp:no racists. ~~~~ --MikutoH talk! 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:No racists feels like an appropriate target for WP:Racism (without having any background knowledge of the essay or redirect) – in fact, WP:Racism would seemingly be a better page name for the essay. But I think WP:RACIST should be kept to its current target. I don't think they necessarily need to have the same target. MClay1 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think they should. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about disambiguation between the 2 uses above and no racists? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:AINTBROKE. The RACIST shortcut refers to the policy subsection about not using contentious labels and lists "racist" as its second example of words not to use, while WikiProject Discrimination is an appropriate target for someone looking for Wikipedia writings about the subject of racism and the project that directs those efforts. Both have been around for many years without being a problem, both have hatnotes to possibly related topics (but not to each other, interestingly), and I don't think that wanting things to be the same is a good reason to mess with these titles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkblood[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 the band and group entries, No Consensus on the first two. Jay 💬 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No substantial mention of "Pinkblood" anywhere on Wikipedia; is only stated once in a citation on a different article. If this is a possibly notable group, seems to be worthwhile to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per this article from the Korea Times [2], this is what I could find on Pink Blood from SM. While there might be an argument to keep the first 2 redirects after using the info from the article to expand the SM Entertainment article, the remaining redirects should be deleted as Pink Blood is clearly not a future kpop group but rather a made-up term for fans of SM Entertainment. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CountHacker: by .. using the info from the article..., which article are you referring to? The first 2 redirects does not have a pre-redirect page history with content. Jay 💬 08:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the news article from the Korea Times. Another news article from the Korea JoongAng Daily states that "the artists and staff at SM Entertainment refer to themselves as “Pink Blood,” for having the same color as the company's logo in their veins." So having a redirect from Pink Blood to Sm Entertainment is not really of a stretch. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:29, 9 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).

Pawanism[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 no consensus. Jay 💬 08:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Pawanism" at the target page. 7 years ago, it was said that "Pawanism isn't notable on its own, but should be discussed on Pawan Kalyan" in an edit summary. However, it is not. There are multiple people named Pawan on Wikipedia; "Pawanism" is too vague in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the term is related to him. [3][4][5] I don't see harm in keeping the redirect and adding a short note somewhere in the page, although admittedly I'm not quite sure where it'd fit in. Golem08 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No note has been added to the target so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:28, 9 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).

Pluri-[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:pluri-. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pluri indeed means plural, but the current target is about grammatical person, and this prefix is used in other contexts (eg. plurinational, plurisexual, etc.) and it's not mentioned in the target page either. It could be dabified in line with multi. --MikutoH talk! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that Plural isn't a good target as it doesn't explain how the prefix operates. Exploring what would go into a Pluri DAB page turns up only Pluri Inc. as a PTM and a list of articles that have a pluri- prefix that maybe could go into a See also section. Such a page might ignore too many DAB guidelines while trying too hard to guess at what might be useful. Perhaps a soft retarget to wikt:pluri- is most helpful to searchers. ― Synpath 23:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the Wiktionary suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft retarget to Wiktionary, as a grammatical prefix which isn't discussed on Wikipedia. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:27, 8 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7&oldid=1223877172"