This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2023.
Template:Max/2
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 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Largely unused set of template redirects from the days of pre-modularization. They should have been deleted back when it was made into a module.
SWinxy (
talk) 20:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is standard cleanup at TfD after converting a template to a module (or to not needing sub-pages).
Gonnym (
talk) 05:05, 10 July 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).
Beto Vazquez Infinity
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 wrong venue. @
Neo139:, Randi Moth is correct. Good luck with fixing this.
(non-admin closure)J947 † edits 11:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I want to delete this redirect in order to move (preserving history)
Beto Vázquez Infinity (with á) to here (without á). I made the move (from a->á) long time ago, but I was wrong. Looking forward to fix this.
Neo139 (
talk) 20:23, 9 July 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).
Minister of Helth
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.
There are a boatload of health ministers, and typing this exact misspelling results in many correctly-spelled results. No incoming links. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
See article: From 1972 to 1975 under
Doug Everingham, the Ministry was named the "Ministry of Helth [sic]" in some informal contexts due to Everingham's support of
Spelling Reform. I wouldn't object to refining to the History section, where that quote is found, but if so
you should bundle Minister for Helth and Ministry of Helth. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I feel like in that case it should be retargeted to
Doug Everingham, since it does not appear to have survived him or the
SR1 reform proposal. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd add that this minor detail is probably more stable at
Doug Everingham than at
Minister for Health and Aged Care; since the latter is an office that still exists, its article is more subject to revision. I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence gets pruned from the article in the future as its relevance diminishes with time. The detail will, however, always remain relevant to
Doug Everingham. 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) –
Scyrme (
talk) 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Note to closer: This comment was before the bundling occurred, but my comment stands for the newly added ones as well.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 17:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Presidentman: Can you clarify on your reference of "this article"? Is it the current target or the Australian minister? Jay 💬 06:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
So digging into the refs for this in the article, it looks like the actual term was "Minister for Helth", which makes sense given the use of "for" in the current name. So I would be inclined to target this version using "of" to
Health minister as a misspelling of
Minister of Health (an avoided double redirect), perhaps with a hatnote to the current target, but that should only be done if
Ministry of Helth is handled similarly (retargeted to
Ministry of Health), and it seems too late to bundle here.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's been less than 24 hours, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think bundling is too late.
Minister for Helth is also relevant. –
Scyrme (
talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
RetargetMinister of Helth to
Health minister and retargetMinistry of Helth to
Ministry of Health. Now that everything is before us here, I think the version using "for" should be kept and the versions using "of" should be targeted to the broader targets as misspellings per my comments above. Note that
Ministry for Helth doesn't exist, or for that matter, neither does
Ministry for Health, but perhaps these should. I oppose retargeting to Doug Everingham at the moment because the only use of "Helth" on that article is "Department of Helth", not using the term with minister or ministry. Perhaps if the text there can been expanded to use the terms of these redirects, with the references updated, then retargeting there could be considered.Mdewman6 (
talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget to (the relevant section of)
Doug Everingham per above discussion; a niche failed attempt at spelling reform (a feat only
Noah Webster and maybe
Samuel Johnson could pull off) should be targeted towards the main user, and as I said in the OP no typist will reasonably use this quirky spelling for its intended purpose. As for the "Ministry of Helth", I would probably also retarget that to Everingham for the same reason. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 04:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three–four-way split as it stands. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Reiterating my support for retargeting to
Doug Everingham; I've copypasted the citations from the ministry article to Everingham's own article, and now the latter has (slightly) more information on the topic. Continuing to target to the Health Department as a whole gives the impression that Australians still spell it the "Helth Minister", which does not appear the case from what I can see. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 03:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
RetargetMinister for Helth to
Doug Everingham; retarget the others using 'of' per my previous comments above. I have updated the text at
Doug Everingham with a cited use of "Minister for Helth" so now I agree that is the best place for it. However, the versions using "of" are not used in any sources, so are best taken as misspellings of the more general terms, and should be retargeted as such.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:01, 18 July 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).
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 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't fully understand the nomination statement, but in any case delete as not being mentioned in that section, and only being mentioned once in conjunction with pier 29, so unlikely to be of any value. I think if mention could be added to the current section (if the pier was of importance) then it would be a reasonable redirect as it seems unlikely someone searching this would be looking for something else.
A7V2 (
talk) 01:14, 10 July 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).
Umar Vadillo
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, Rosguilltalk 05:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as from all I can see no merge took place; else retarget to
Murabitun World Movement#Shari‘ah currency if one did. It's the most helpful target, but search results seem slightly more helpful. J947 † edits 10:58, 17 July 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).
Battle of Saragarhi (film)
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.
Keep and add mention at target. The page has been getting lot of views, so readers are interested. The page has history and I have just tagged the redirect as such. Note that
Battle of Saragarhi (Movie) is a former title of the page and may be bundled as well. It does appear that Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't shelved the film, and the page may even be restored to the standalone article, if the film notability criteria is met.
[1][2][3][4][5]. Jay 💬 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No mention. I don't think these kinds of redirects are useful even if there was a mention, unless there is some information about the film.
A7V2 (
talk) 01:16, 10 July 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).
Swipe left
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 wiktionary. Jay 💬 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The terms swiping left or right go beyond just Tinder and applies to several dating apps or colloquial language more generally. But I didn't see the terms mentioned at
Dating app,
Online dating or
Swipe in any real detail. Maybe it's best to delete these to not center Tinder from more general terms. I'm not happy with the proposed retarget as "swipe" is not explicitly mentioned at the article, and it loses any association with dating apps which I suspect would be the connection people would be searching for. ―
Synpath 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no reason why someone couldn't just add it to the article. - CHAMPION(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 23:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Adding "swipe" to Pointing device gesture? Yes, probably should be there already, and I should have been more careful with my wording. Adding "swipe + direction" as relevant to dating apps there is likely not warranted. ―
Synpath 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to the respective existing Wiktionary entries. I came here looking up "swipe right" to make sure I got the meaning right. (I didn't.) I'm not aware of any other significant
idiomatic use of these terms.
Soft-Retarget to Wikitionary - I firmly oppose retargeting to
Pointing device gesture, as this is too broad for what these phrases plainly mean. Tinder actually isn't actually a bad target for the term, because the usage originated from tinder specifically... however, I understand that the term has actually grown more general than its origin, and works both with dating apps in general and as a colloquial term for approval/disapproval specifically, which is not really capturable in any of our existing articles. Lacking that, I think the wiktionary entry will suit our hypothetical searcher best... they might be looking for an article about the term, but we don't have that. However, they might have stmubled across the term in the wild and simply need to know what it means, in which case wiktionary will be the best help.
Fieari (
talk) 05:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wiktionary per Paradoctor and Fieari. (Targets would be
wiktionary:swipe left and
wiktionary:swipe right, unless the -ing forms should target
their specific
pages, but those specific pages are simply "Present participle of swipe [direction]", which is already covered at swipe left/right. Not entirely sure how that's usually handled, though.) Skarmory(talk •contribs) 06:02, 24 July 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).
Muslim scholars
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.
I think it would be better if this targeted
Lists of Islamic scholars rather than assuming that contemporary scholars are the primary topic.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Lists of Islamic scholars - Plurals matter. Someone looking for Muslim scholars is not looking for an article on what a Muslim scholar is, but for a list of them.
Fieari (
talk) 00:58, 10 July 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).
Swade
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. We do, actually ({{R from surname}}), but as there are two people with this surname I've made it a set index.
(non-admin closure)J947 † edits 08:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
We don't normally redirect from standalone surnames, IIFC. Don't see the use case for this.
EEng 06:54, 9 July 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).
Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor
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.
Pat Robertson and Zionism is implicitly mentioned in that section. That's the section I had in mind "Pat Robertson has been a long-term friend of the state of Israel, and continues to be so.". —
Invasive Spices (
talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For
Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor, if it had been something more along the lines of "Pat Robertson's views on Charles Taylor" I would say weak keep, but if anything on second look I'm more inclined to say delete (as opposed to weak) since there are no dealings mentioned in that section. I'm not sure what context a link would be appropriate but definitely there are countless instances where a piped link is more appropriate than creating a redirect, and this is probably one. For
Pat Robertson and Zionism, I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel, they are not the same. Presidentman's suggested target is in some ways better due to it actually being about Zionism, but I think it is too brief a mention to warrant a redirect.
A7V2 (
talk) 01:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
his $8,000,000 (USD) investment in a Liberian gold mine ? All 3 paragraphs in the target section are about PR & CT.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Refine the first two to
Pat Robertson controversies#Financial ties to African leaders. The entire section is about Charles Taylor, and this search term doesn't seem especially unlikely to me. Retarget the third and fourth to
Christian Zionism#United States, where Robertson's stance on the issue is discussed, although not in detail. This section seems like a better target for the fourth one than the one on Ariel Sharon given that "Pat Robertson and Israel" is a broader term than just his comments about Sharon. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does that really have more than the quote I copied in my comment above?
Invasive Spices (
talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
About the same to be honest. But I concur with A7V2 that I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, going to add another complex suggestion here. Refine the first two as per Presidentman above. Delete the second two - I don't see enough content in either the current target or Presidentman's retarget to warrant a redirect.
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:39, 21 July 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).
Damaon, Diu& Silvassa
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, Rosguilltalk 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here.
Bastewasket (
talk) 03:02, 9 July 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).
Union Territory of Damaon, Diu& Silvassa
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, Rosguilltalk 16:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here.
Bastewasket (
talk) 02:51, 9 July 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).