Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2023.

Mark and Avoid[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 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the redirect seems to vague. Also, the capitalisation makes this redirect unhelpful. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I don't have an issue with the capitalisation since it seems to be used elsewhere more as a proper noun. Searching online this terminology seems very strongly associated with Romans 16:17 (and to a lesser extent verse 18). I would have thought there would be some mention at Romans 16 (and if there was I would definitely want this to target that), but since it is at least described at the current target it does seem helpful. A7V2 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is merely an advertisement for The Way, just like all of the redirects in the section below. The concept does not belong to The Way [1] and should not be redirected there. It should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    just like all of the redirects in the section below : for the records, see the two sections below this one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28. Veverve (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find it quite unlikely that a reader searching "Mark and avoid" is really looking for the article on The Way International. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 23 March 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).

2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukraine[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 Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)#Missile attacks and aerial warfare. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely ambiguous redirect. The target page does not include tons of Russian airstrikes against Ukraine and there is no discussion for doing so currently, nor should be. The target article is restricted to energy and civilian infrastructure, and this redirect does not reflect that. I don't find it useful in anyway and it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:52, 16 March 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).

Scapular ptosis[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. As unopposed. Jay 💬 10:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not occur anywhere in Enwiki, and I don't believe any of the entries on the disambiguation pages apply. If there isn't a better target it should be deleted Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 16 March 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).

God of Carpentry[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 God of carpentry, the newly created dab page created by Scyrme. I'll go ahead and WP:BOLDly retarget this there, as there wasn't any opposition to this retarget suggestion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are other deities throughout various world religions that are or were worshipped as the 'god of carpentry' than just this deified Chinese inventor from the Spring and Autumn period.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any other such deities have articles or sections on Wikipedia? – Scyrme (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a search, I was able to find Ninildu and a mention of a Celtic god of carpentry at List of craters on Europa, although that deity does not yet have an article. A disambiguation page (WP:TWODABS) could be created at God of carpentry, with this redirect pointing there. (It makes more sense to have the lowercase be the main title, since this phrase isn't necessarily a proper noun.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:45, 16 March 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).

SCREAM (cipher)[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 💬 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCREAM and Scream are two different ciphers. Cf. https://eprint.iacr.org/2002/019 and https://competitions.cr.yp.to/round2/screamv3.pdf Dimawik (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom but the best solution would of course be to create a stub on SCREAM (cipher). Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 23 March 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).

Orthodox Christianity[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 Orthodox Church. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Orthodox Church (a disambiguation page) would probably be a better target here; I imagine that most people who search for this are looking for one of the Orthodox Churches rather than the application of the phrase "orthodoxy" in Christian contents; if this page is to be a redirect, it would be better targeted towards the dab as such.

There is an article hidden underneath this that was BLAR'd in 2020; I haven't gone through all of the references, but we also may want to simply restore the article rather than retargeting if the refs check out. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Restoring the old article would not be appropriate because Eastern Orthodoxy already covers the same topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Agreed. "Orthodox Christianity" is a search for a denomination or branch of Christianity, not the concept of orthodoxy more generally. If it were the latter I'd expect the opposite order: Christian Orthodoxy (this is in-fact already a redirect to the same section). Plausibly, it could be used as an umbrella for Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, that is (reductively), Eastern Christianity, in contrast to Western Roman Catholicism and Protestantism; I think that possibility could be covered by adding Eastern Christianity to the "see also" of the disambiguation page. – Scyrme (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastern Christianity also has Eastern Catholicism and the Assyrian Church of the East within its scope, which is what makes me hesitant to retarget there. Adding it to the dab page in the "see also" section would make sense. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited the "see also" section accordingly. – Scyrme (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --CoyOil (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 16 March 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).

Start Publishing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Start Publishing

Microbear[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. While there was some support and evidence backing the current target, editors arguing deletion were not swayed by the evidence, and note that this term is not defined or explained at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any reliable sourcing describing chipmunks by the name "microbear". Typing microbear into any search engine results exclusively in information about tardigrades aka water bears, and as such I tried to change the redirect. Apparently this was controversial so here's a new conversation section that should have been an email. TNstingray (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Microbear is a common name for chipmunks, I think it may have originated in the Boy Scouts but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what counts as a reliable source for the non-scientific name of an animal apart from just showing its commonly used.
This came up before and multiple people agreed it was quite commonly used amongst backpackers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microbear
NUXI (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "multiple people", do you mean one additional user and one IP address? I'd say that's pretty far from WP consensus, and rather some variation of an echo chamber based on like-minded interest. Absolutely none of these provided sources are reliable or verifiable. WP:UNDUE may also be applicable, as even if the redirect is kept, it certainly seems more likely to refer to a more accurate target such as Tardigrade. I'm not part of the early-2000s backpacking community, but I have certainly never heard this as a common name for a chipmunk, and neither has Google Scholar: ("microbear" [2]: 0 hits, 21 hits for "microbearing(s)"), ("micro bear"[3][4]: 0 hits, 19 hits for "micro bearing(s)", or "micro-bear" in some sort of chemical/molecular context). I'm definitely overreacting, and I should assume good faith, but I just found it a little perplexing that a user with ten total sporadic edits [5] before today since 2009 immediately reverts my WP:BOLD redirect. That is all. TNstingray (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not notice that "DS" had made both of the extra citations. (I am obviously jon787 and NUXI, I wasn't trying to imply I wasn't). The only reason I don't have more edits is because im normally too lazy to log in. I mostly just fix minor typos and grammatical mistakes and care little about attribution.
I created the redirect 13 years ago so that novice backpackers could actually look up what people were talking about when they overhead other backpackers talk about microbears. There has been almost no controversy over the redirect in for the majority of that time.
While Tardigrade does show up in a google search, the first useful result is a National Geographic article that NEVER actually refers to them as microbears. Neither does the next article from Live Science.
The number of results in these links will probably vary slightly but:
Apparently its more commonly written with a hyphen ("micro-bear") in both cases and if you search that its 3,520 for chipmunk vs 213 for tardigrade.
So if we want to just delete the redirect for not being notable enough at all that would be fine with me, but based on Google results using the term to refer to a Tardigrade is even less common than using it to refer to Chipmunks. NUXI (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any realiable or verifiable sources showing that Tardigrades are called Microbears?
The top google results I see are a National Geographic article, which as I previously noted does not ever actually call them that. So that is not a citable source. Neither is the Live Science article which comes next because it also fails to ever actually call them Microbears. NUXI (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have reliable or verifiable sources for this; it was more of an inference at the time due to tardigrades being a microorganism also being known as " water bears". In any case, none of the sources at those two links are reliable or verifiable either. That shows that this such an incredibly niche nickname that the redirect honestly needs to be deleted based on undue weight. TNstingray (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources show that this term is used for chipmunks or tardigrades. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reliable sources do not use this term. Speaking of Boy Scouts, one thing I learned when I was a Boy Scout is that golden-mantled ground squirrels are not chipmunks (but are often thought to be chipmunks by people who don't know any better). Golden-mantled ground squirrels do steal food from campers. Are people who use the term "microbear" accurately identifying chipmunks, or just using microbear to refer to any sciurid that steals food from campers? Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and sufficient sources to meet WP:V as an existing, if very niche, term for chipmunks. Reliable sources are not needed for redirects unless they are non-neutral/negative and not clearly established terms. Search engines returning tardigrades for just searching for "microbear" because people often refer to tardigrades as water bears and also describe them as "micro" with various terms (like animal) – not because there are people using the term microbear for them (as an example, search google with a quoted word to mostly force the exact term exists and see all the tardigrade results go away). So us retargeting to that possibly could cause WP:CITOGENESIS. (As an side, I don't see how this should have ever been discussed via email. Either the redirect's talk page or here is more appropriate.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Skynxnex. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are way too many things this could refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by მარია ზაქარიაძე (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — მარია ზაქარიაძე (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lina211 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Enough sources to keep and doesn't hurt to have it
PalauanReich (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. It's not mentioned in the target, and chipmunks are not bears or even in the bear family. They are rodents. This is just Urban Dictionary nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not literally being a bear is not a particularly strong argument. Tardigrades aren't bears either, yet "water bear" is a common name for them. Aadvarks aren't bears, but "ant bear" is still a common name for them. A lot of common names are imprecise. – Scyrme (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The problem with this common name is that it doesn't appear to be all that common. Searching "micro+bear" brings up a load of results for miniature dolls/teddy bears. Searching "microbear" the top result after Wikipedia is Urban Dictionary followed by more results for miniature teddy bears. If this is used by backpackers/scouts, it doesn't seem to be used very often.
The sources above seem to suggest that it is used jokingly (a reference to their, like actual bears, sometimes foraging through things campers leave unattended), not as a serious synonym. All but one of them explicitly explain that "micro-bears" are chipmunks, implying it's not used widely enough for people to assume others already understand what it means. One of them actually uses "micro-bear" to refer to any small animal that forages through unattended belongings (both chipmunks and mice are given as examples). I agree that this is one for Urban Dictionary not Wikipedia.
The strongest argument to keep would be WP:CHEAP, but the examples given were found by explicitly looking for the term in connection with chipmunks and even then one of them uses it more broadly than that. Given that most of my results were not for chipmunks, I think the case for having this point to chipmunks specifically rather than to another topic is weak. If anything, the primary topic seems to be miniature teddy bears, but that article doesn't exist. – Scyrme (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary-ify? - There is a Wiktionary entry for minibear with a definition which is an exact match for this term. (link: minibear) If others feel it would be helpful to have somewhere in the Wiki online ecosystem that explains this term, I could add an entry for "microbear" to Wiktionary using the "synonym of" template. I think it would be more helpful than a redirect on Wikipedia to Chipmunk since the article doesn't actually use or explain the term "microbear". – Scyrme (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an entry for microbear on Wiktionary. As I said, I think this is adequate, and the redirect on Wikipedia can simply be deleted. (A soft redirect is not needed, in my opinion.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a niche in-joke with poor referencing that is highly unlikely to be a search term and appears ambiguous to boot. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist because a wiktionary entry was created on 11th March and added to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per JoelleJay. --CoyOil (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mencioned at target article, and I don't see enough evidence that it is a common name for chipmunks. V27t (talk) 16:03, 17 March 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).

Star Life[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29#Star Life

Social Rockstar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Social Rockstar

Queen’s Slipper[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Queen’s Slipper

MK Pictures[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) EpicPupper (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:23, 16 March 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).

Student achievement[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 18:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Grades are the usual way that student achievement is formally measured and recorded. The target doesn't use the exact phrase "student achievement", but the first sentence says "achievements in a course", which is close to the same meaning. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like kind of a stretch to validate this redirect continuing to target this page. In particular, students can potentially earn an achievement by participating in other activities than grades such as extracurricular activities (such as sports or competitions), or participating in clubs and/or societies that a school offers ... which are not particularly related to educational grades/grading. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're saying is true in principle, but in practice when people talk about "student achievement", they're generally talking about coursework or learning objectives. See for instance section 1.1 of this source, on the subject of "Defining Student Achievement", which only talks about definitions related to coursework, learning objectives, and exams, not extracurriculars. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 16 March 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).

Torah-submission[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. After two relists, only weakly-phrased !votes are left standing. I'll note that based on additional searches on Google Scholar, Scyrme's description of this phrase as referring to Christian Torah observance appears to be accurate, but this concept receives rather little coverage at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak agree I don't recall why I made this, but it seems like a really obscure term that is confusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably related to Christian Torah-submission which was evidently an article before being merged way back in 2007. It seems it's meant as simply a concise way of saying 'submission to the Torah', that is, observing the Old Testament's commandments; the pre-merge article explicitly states that terms “Torah-submission” and “Torah-observance” are synonymous. (link to pre-merge article) The relevant discussions are still on its talk page. – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is needed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not entirely sure what this is phrase is going for, but it's phrasing to me is vaguely anti-semitic and does not seem to be in particularly common usage. With the neutrality concerns and the lack of common usage, this doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia. TartarTorte 02:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    My pre-relist reply covers what it is going for. The original article explains more about the term: Some consider the use of “submission” more accurate because the term “observance” can imply that one successfully observes all commands, which few, if any, claim is possible. It includes a note: The organization, First Fruits of Zion, for example, prefers this term. "First Fruits of Zion" is a a Messianic Jewish organisation. – Scyrme (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TartarTorte: Is your view still the same? – Scyrme (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is attested to in WP:RS, I am ok with it. I'll strike the delete and change to weak keep per Scyrme. TartarTorte 12:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Scyrme above. TartarTorte 12:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 16 March 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).

Rogue Squadron (upcoming film)[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 "Rogue Squadron (upcoming film)" and Refine the others. Jay 💬 13:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to delete these redirects because both Rogue Squadron (which was being directed by Patty Jenkins and written by Matthew Robinson), and an untitled film that Kathleen Kennedy and Kevin Feige were producing together were reportedly cancelled.[1] 99.209.40.250 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've misunderstood the Kevin Feige film as being Rogue Squadron, but it is a separate film that was cancelled while still untitled. However, it is still mentioned in the same section, so I still support refining it with the same target. Randi Moth (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vary, Adam B. (2023-03-07). "'Star Wars' Shakeup: Kevin Feige and Patty Jenkins Movies Shelved, Taika Waititi Looking to Star in His Own Film (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. Retrieved 2023-03-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirects were not tagged for RfD. Now done, and these should be listed for 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget adding the proposed anchor. I don't see how the encyclopedia benefits from removing these. Deleting Rogue Squadron (upcoming film) is fine since the simple (film) dab exists, but what is the upside of this? Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and someone might remember something about a Rogue Squadron from way back or a Kevin Feige star wars movie from way back and search for it. The proposed target can give them the information they seek. Also, as stated, these are not in active development, which does not mean cancelled. As schedules free up after other projects complete, they have left the door open for revisiting. None of the criteria set forth in WP:RDEL seem to apply here, but refining with an anchor can get readers there faster. -2pou (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:UFILM, while fine to use as the page title while the release date is unknown, the pages with "(upcoming film)" in the title are intended to be put up to discussions once they are no longer true due to being misleading. There has also been recent consensus to delete such redirects. Randi Moth (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I follow the logic, but what I meant is that "upcoming" can't truly be called misleading yet since it wasn't actually cancelled, only put on indefinite hiatus where the door may be left open for--who knows three years later--it return to return to active development--"upcoming" is still technically true. Regardless, if we want to call that crystal balling, that's fine; like I said, I'm not opposed to disposing of that one since it's overly disambiguated and searchable alternatives remain. -2pou (talk) 22:26, 16 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_16&oldid=1147230726"