Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 28

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

July 28 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2021.

Rugby union at the 2016 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Rugby union titled article that redirects to a Rugby sevens titled article. They are two different sports. Rugby sevens was newly introduced for the 2016 Games and is continued to be contested for the 2020 Games. Rugby union has not been contested at the Olympics for almost a century. I don't see a reason for this redirect to exist as it also wrongly causes the 2016 entry to appear in the list of Olympics where Rugby union was contested in the Rugby union at the Olympics article. If Rugby union was contested at the 2012 Games, only to be replaced with Rugby sevens for the 2016 Games, then the redirect would somewhat make sense, but there is almost a century long gap between the two sports. boldblazer (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rugby sevens is a form of rugby union, and for me this could be a plausible search term. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rugbyfan22. It's a variant of RU. Onel5969 TT me 12:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rugby union is the umbrella term, XVs and Sevens are variants of it.Skeene88 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the above three imply that all the other Olympic Rugby sevens articles need a Rugby union redirect, or is it specifically limited to this redirect only? -boldblazer (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issues if a redirect for 2020 Olympics was created as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 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.

COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020 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 23:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, no mentions at target article. There wasn't a COVID outbreak, there were a few positive cases, none of which is mentioned (or significant to worth mentioning) at the target article. AfD was closed as redirect, but there wasn't a proper discussion on redirect vs delete, so starting this discussion (at correct venue for redirect discussion) Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there simply wasn't a COVID-19 outbreak there. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect was done during an AfD to avoid deletion. Misleading title. Delete. Jay (Talk) 06:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see the potential to a "COVID-19 cases at major sporting events" or similar being a decent list/article, but until that exists, this has no meaning - delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 July 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.

Candy Jacobs 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 move Candy Jacobs (skateboarder) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs, a former cast member, is no longer mentioned at the target. This page was previously converted to a dab page between the TOWIE cast member and a red-linked skateboarder, but as neither of them appear to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no longer mentioned at that target, but mentioned on others on Wikipedia. Redirects and dabs are cheap - nothing to be gained from deletion. Restored dab with better link. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Boleyn, wouldn't that mean that you should be !voting disambiguate, not keep? signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as Candy Jacobs (skateboarder) now exists, and it still does not appear to be WP:DUE to mention the Candy Jacobs associated with TOWIE at TOWIE, moving Candy Jacobs (skateboarder) to Candy Jacobs seems like the correct course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target, move the skateboarder to that name instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move skateboarder article to this title. Redirecting actors to the names of shows they have appeared in is always a very bad idea. Most actors have appeared in many different shows, which creates a big XY problem, which gets worse when the actor gets additional roles on other shows. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:22, 29 July 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.

Line feed edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 5#Line feed

Postmodern Neo-Marxism edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Postmodern Neo-Marxism

Springboks 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. ✗plicit 13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense to retarget to the singular form Springbok, as plural redirects normally redirect to the corresponding singular form. However it may be appropriate to leave it as it is, given there is likely more interest in the rugby team. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A google search for the plural gives me three pages of results exclusively about the rugby team, a search for the singular gives me a pretty even mix of results about the animal and about rugby. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fwiw, there is precedent for redirecting the plural to a sports team with the same name rather than to the singular. See, e.g., Yankee vs. Yankees, Celtic vs. Celtics, Seahawk vs. Seahawks. Mlb96 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The rugby team is the primary topic for the plural name. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mlb96; the hatnote is necessary and sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Thryduulf, Mlb96 and Joseph2302. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 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.

Benghazi!1 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 02:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This string isn't used in the target, and a google search did not illuminate for me the significance of this phrase. Unless some sort of particular meaning for this can be turned up, I don't think this is a plausible search term. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_28&oldid=1038486144"