This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2021.
Neptune the blue ocean planet
Delete as an implausible search term. I don't see that "The Blue Ocean Planet" is a common name for Neptune; it is not used in the article. If any planet were called "Blue Ocean Planet", it seems it would be Earth. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second Avenue Subway (1970s)
Delete. Unused redirect as implausible term to search for or link to. If the section link is desired then that should be used, and if the name is desired than the main article at Second Avenue Subway, which in part covers the history and links to the fuller history article, should be used. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Honestly I don't know why this was created. Since this has absolutely no links, I can only surmise that I created it with the intention of linking the original proposal in some context related to the Program for Action. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Country accent
Internet and GScholar results suggest that this term is generally used to refer to rural dialects in general (including/especially rural dialects outside of the US). While there is a phenomenon of non-Southern singers adopting some South-coded dialectic patterns, this is a more complex phenomenon than Southern American English simple being the "country accent" (see [1], [2]). Given the broad usage of the term and the lack of an article dedicated to the "country music accent", deletion seems like the appropriate way to go, rather than turning this into a useless pointer to Regional accent. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consanguinamory
Created by user now banned for socking. Non-noteworthy neologism not mentioned in article. ★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slovaks in Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului)
Non-sense. Giurtelecu Șimleului is in Romania, not in Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 12:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giurtelecu Șimleului was part of Hungary at multiple points in history. If the nomination was for a Hungary vs Romania discussion, the nomination can have more details. Also, there is a non-disambiguated redirect Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle in Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree that this does seem nonsensical to me. The only way I can make sense of these redirects is if it is asking about the Slovak population in Giurtelecu Șimleulu when it was in Hungary. This seems to be justified by other redirects at the target with other political entity (formerly) under control of this area: Slovaks in Transylvania Giurtelecu Șimleului, Slovaks in Transylvania (Giurtelecu Șimleului), Slovaks in Austria Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului), Slovaks in Austria Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului, Slovaks in Romania Giurtelecu Șimleului, and Slovaks in Romania (Giurtelecu Șimleului). (I won't bundle them in because the nominator is only concerned with Hungary, but I think a follow up discussion with these redirects should be launched once this is closed as delete.) However, a couple additional problems include the fact that the target does not give a historical breakdown of Slovaks in Giurtelecu Șimleului during each historical period and that the redirects are still formatted incorrectly, "Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului)" reads like a separate Hungarian political entity in control of Giurtelecu Șimleului, which obviously is not accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Jordan Peele film
Propose deletion: "Untitled" project has since been titled, and the Untitled slot will likely be needed again with a fresh history. Page views don't seem to indicate external links will break. -2pou (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DefinitionofBibleTerms
Unlikely capitalisation + the article it leads to is not a Biblical dictionary but an article on which texts are in which bible.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a very old redirect dating from January 2001 when Wikipedia used CamelCase, so the capitalisation here is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Glossary of Christianity, as although the content that was originally at this title is now at the present target I think the glossary is a better match for what people will expect here. My second preference is keep, because given the age of the redirect it is almost certain there are incoming links so deletion should not be being considered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if WP:NOTDICTIONARY (literally, definitions would be dictionary material), a soft redirect to a Wiktionary category or appendix would be the solution (such as wikt:en:Category:en:Bible) or deletion. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 0 incoming mainspace links. 20 google hits. In my opinion, the lack of spaces between this redirect's words makes it quite implausible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Religious authority
The term is wat too vague to redirect to any precise article. A "religious authority" can be a person or group who has authority within a religious (Collins), or it can be what a person or group possesses (learnreligions.com). Said people or groups are not always a clergy, as some religions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses or the Baháʼí Faith, do not have a clergy, but have a leadership to their denomination (i.e. an authority in the first sense I gave).
In any case, a redirect to Theocracy is unacceptable and can lead to sentences like at Biblical canon where it is written "These canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations", where "religious authorities" redirect to theocracy which is very likely not what the writer of those lines had in mind.
I recommend deletion, or maybe a soft redirect to the Wiktionary's "authority" entry. Veverve (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy
Redirects probably created by mistake. I cannot find what those redirects are supposed to be about. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm also baffled here the first redirect was created as a one-sentence stub about Theology (the article about which had already existed for a year). There is no notable person or thing called Eugene Violet, the closest is Eugène Viollet-le-Duc who was a 19th Century French architect with no obvious connection to theology. For "Þ2Dc" google finds only matches in various scientific/mathematical formula that seem to lack a commonality of subject but all of which are entirely unrelated to theology - I wonder if this part is mojibake? Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SLOP
I simply don't think these are good shortcut redirects. I think these are unintuitive - I don't think it's obvious from the name of the redirect where you will end up when you click them and I can't see how you get "slop" from the title of the essay or it's contents, where does the "O" come from? The slightly bigger issue (and hence the reason I'm bringing this here) is that the word "slop"/"Sloppy" has all sorts of negative connotations in the English language, implying that the proposed change is poorly thought out, low quality swill (which these proposals often aren't, they're just unnecessary or impractical). If someone is proposing a change in good faith then describing their proposal as "sloppy" is likely to be unnecessarily rude in my opinion, especially since, as noted by the essay, these proposals are often made by inexperienced newcomers (example diff [3]). As a rough guide these links have about 30 uses between them. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A 'solution looking for a problem' could certainly be characterized as slop (though one would generally pipe the link or write "per SLOP" as opposed to directing it at anyone in an unkind way). It is vaguely similar to the title and a convenient device to remember the essay. I personally find it useful and have it on a list I no longer generally maintain in my sandbox. Bar a convincing proposal that another page which greatly benefit from this shortcut, I am firmly in the camp of retention as-is. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The abbreviation is not even correct. The abbreviation should be SLfaP or SLP, not SLOP. Aasim (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The redirect in wide use, if inaccurate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Shortcut redirects are not required to be unintuitive (c.f. WP:RFFL, WP:ITNRD, WP:NCR, WP:A11Y, etc, etc) - if you don't recognise one you should just follow the link and read it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Aasim. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I am in agreement with the nominator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:2020
Article was never originally a draft. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sentiment at WP:SRED. Often, such a solution is employed instead of unwantedly burdening miscellany for deletion with it (or e.g. to avoid granting drafts which are of low quality heightened visibility before the wild hunt of G13 overtakes them). There is certainly no need to shift that burden to this venue. An extremely vast number of redirects exist from draftspace to pages that were never drafts in the traditional sense. Moreover, it doubles as a navigational aid; anyone who is considering drafting on the subject and arrives at this title will know that our encyclopedia already covers the topic (though this is just a side effect which happens to be a boon, as creating such a redirect for all draftspace titles would not be beneficial). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to speedy deletion if the page is deemed eligible. The overarching principle behind my argument is that the regular listing of such pages here for contemplation would be an anti-productive endeavor (a similar sentiment to the reason why speedy redirection exists for mfd). There are many cases much more worthy of consideration at this venue; pondering and discussing items like this is an unnecessary maintenance burden. The only reason I am opposed to a non-speedy deletion outcome here is that a "bad" nomination should not yield the sought after (i.e. "successful" or "rewarding" if you will) outcome, thereby potentially encouraging more nominations of the same caliber. Moreover, this should not be taken as an impugnation of the nominator, but rather as a simple learning opportunity (i.e. "article was never originally a draft" is not a good reason to list such a page here).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep essentially per Godsy. There's a reason WP:SRE is a guideline. These redirects help our novice draft creators and other potential newcomers find the pages where they should be contributing. Redirecting is quick, efficient, and does not take up any community time; it's also less BITEy for the newcomers who make these and they also get to keep their history. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no reason to keep around an eleven year old's musings of why 2020 was a bad year.
Btw im 11 plz blow this up people need to know the challenges the world is facing
really says it all... -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure the initial revision is junk, which describes nearly everything in draftspace, but there's no need to conceal the history which is all deletion does, the revisions live on in the server regardless. In order to justify the maintenance burden of additional xfds there should be a compelling reason to conceal the history in question, but in nearly every case those are already covered by the csd. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am perfectly fine with this being deleted as WP:G3. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm near certain that would've been declined, recalling that the csd (and crd) are to be construed narrowly. Let's be real, there are a truly staggering number of junk revisions currently sitting in visible page histories; I don't see anything that makes this case special, but I'm about 2 minutes away from calling it a night and starting a well-deserved wikibreak, so I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm all for cleaning out "junk revisions" and anything else that is contrary to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. The only thing "special" about this particular redirect is the fact that it was nominated at RfD. So while we're here, I believe it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to get rid of it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting pages like this, and we should never delete pages unless there is a benefit to doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting wet
Possible case of WP:SURPRISE with an NSFW current target, IMO equally refers to any other context in which something can become wet and thus should point to Wet. Bringing here since my bold redirection was challenged. signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too vague to figure out a good target. I agree about WP:SURPRISE, was not expecting Vaginal lubrication to be the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Get Wet, whch is a disambiguation. Add vaginal lubrication to the list entry. Wiktionary already has "getting wet" as a present participle. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget - Retarget to Get Wet. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Wet, which is a disambiguation page, and add Vaginal lubrication to that page. Second choice: delete. None of the articles listed at Get Wet are plausible intended topics for a reader searching "Getting wet", because they're all names of albums, songs, or bands using roughly the exact phrase "get wet" without "-ing". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. When people type "getting wet" into Wikipedia's search bar, probably most of them want to view our article about "vaginal lubrication". Name me other articles that people would want to go to instead? I can't come up with a single one. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wetting, Moisture, and the Wiktionary entry for wetness all seem like plausible alternative intended target, and all are mentioned at the top of Wet. You can get wet by falling into a puddle, this phrasing is not synonymous with vaginal lubrication. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would they include the "get" unless they're referring to the slang meaning? Surely they'd want Wiktionary:get wet instead. Mvolz (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- IDK about you, but growing up "getting wet" was a commonly described side effect of stepping into puddles and a plausible way to search for learning about the process of things becoming wet. I don't think that the sex-related term has primacy here, speaking as a native speaker from North America. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, could we turn the redirect into a disambiguation page then maybe? Sounds like the ideal solution? Distelfinck (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as reverter. If you google "getting wet" the first page of results is all about vaginal lubrication. It is synonymous with vaginal lubrication, unless perhaps you're not a native speaker of English. But then it's doing a disservice to non native speakers trying to find out what this phrase means to have them redirected to a massive disambiguation page. Having this phrase redirect to Wet is actively harmful because as per Distelfinck there's really no reason to search for this unless you're trying to find out what the slang term means. Mvolz (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are a couple options: wikt:Template:wikipedia and wikt:Template:projectlink/Wikipedia come to mind. -- Tavix (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Cunningham (Shortland Street)
This character is not mentioned at the target or at List of Shortland Street characters or at List of original Shortland Street characters. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yoke FM Hilongos
No mention of this in the target article JW 1961 Talk 09:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Twotwofourtysix, which page? I don't see it anywhere. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @AngusWOOF: It was listed in this revision until someone removed it, apparently. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The station's Facebook is named 92.7 Hope Radio and it does have guest speakers from Hope Channel Philippines / SDA, but yes, it doesn't seem like it's a satellite or subsidiary. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Court Justice
There's no apparent reason why the broad phrase "Court Justice" would redirect to the list of justices of the United States's high court: there are many other courts with justices, including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, of Canada, of India, and of many others. Retargeting to Lists of supreme court justices (which is where Justices of the Supreme Court currently redirects to), to Judge (which is where Justices currently redirects to), or to Court Justice (TV series) (which is a precise title match) would be an improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Court Justice over this redirect and add a hatnote. The current target is far too narrow. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the list article is lacking state supreme court lists, so is considerably short of the lists [4] that exist on Wikipedia. And other non-supreme courts also have judges referred to as justices, so that list target would be inadequate even if it were more complete. [5] ;; judge is a viable target, as is the TV show. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]