Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17

June 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2021.

Camp Augustine
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Retargeted to Scouting in Nebraska  . It was targeted to the wrong place originally and has since been fixed. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect target makes no mention of the article that is redirected to it. They appear to be mostly unrelated other than being related to Scouting Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Camp Augustine → Scouting in Nebraska (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * It was targeted to the wrong place on the page. It should have been Scouting_in_Nebraska, which has now been corrected. There is even a citation: --evrik (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Abandoned Mansion (album)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Abandoned Mansion. Unnecessary disambiguation (non-admin closure) &#8213;  Qwerfjkl  &#124; 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use&#32; on reply) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Abandoned Mansion (album) → Dr. Dog (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect should be deleted. It was created at the same time as the article Abandoned Mansion when both redirected to the article about the band Dr. Dog, which created the album. The article Abandoned Mansion now contains content about the album rather than being just a redirect. Having a separate entry with the disambiguating text "(album)" in the title is redundant and confusing to users searching for the album. In addition, by redirecting to the article about the band rather than the article about the album makes it difficult for users to find the correct content. For these reasons, and since there are no articles that link to this redirect, I would suggest that the redirect be deleted. Aogaeru4 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Abandoned Mansion as R from unnecessary disambiguation. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget per 61.239. Redirects like these are useful, since someone might mistakenly think that the target page is ambiguous (a canonical example here being Jupiter, which is about the planet but could just as well be the title of a disambiguation page). Furthermore, they provide a slightly more future-proof title to link to: Even if a new article is written about something titled "Abandoned Mansion", or even if the Abandoned Mansion article is merged into a discography page or something like that, will still point to the correct place.  -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Gay lifestyle
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Anti-LGBT rhetoric with hatnotes to LGBT culture at the target. signed,Rosguill talk 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Gay lifestyle → LGBT culture (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Homosexual lifestyle → LGBT culture (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Retarget to  per WP:R. "Gay/homosexual lifestyle" is a derogatory term used to imply that homosexuality is a choice rather than innate. As such it has little relation to LGBT culture per se. This was discussed previously at RfD with no consensus; however, I think it's a fairly straightforward choice (ahem) given the lack of any mention of the term at the current target. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC) edited 20:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * per nom. Any existing links that are (AGF) unknowingly using derogatory terms should be changed. Links that are contextualized with the terms' derogatory meaning would be better targeted to Gay agenda Anti-LGBT rhetoric . Tweaking existing links is the way to avoid WP:ASTONISHment, which some !voters discussed in the prior RfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) - striking and underlined insertion 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Gay/homosexual lifestyle" is a derogatory term used to imply that homosexuality is a choice rather than innate. Evidence please? I can't speak for anyone else, but when I hear "gay lifestyle," I think of a collection of lifestyle choices that are common among homosexual men. The word "lifestyle" seems to me more closely related to culture than political agenda; lifestyle refers to patterns of behavior among an individual, culture to the same patterns among a group. A political agenda is the policies a particular group promotes, so retargetting these as proposed seems to be redirecting to a destination further from the phrase's actual meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GLAAD, NYT & AP (at least, according to GLAAD), casual mention in the Washington Post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I'll be honest, judging from the tone and contents of the linked pieces, it looks to me like labeling "gay lifestyle" as pejorative is part of a broad attempt to identify and isolate a specific in-group and out-group by fostering and propagating a specific speech community, in part for political reasons. The Washington Post article you linked is a very clear example of that, with Amy Coney Barrett being heavily criticized as hostile to the LGBT not because she had said or done anything overtly anti-LGBT, but because she failed to use (and probably wasn't even aware of) the particular vocabulary of this new speech community. But enough socio-political analysis out of me; the real issue is the target.
 * As I see it, being pejorative (if it is pejorative; I'll admit I'm not inclined to concede that it truly is without seeing scholarly academic sources saying so) doesn't necessarily change the target; we have, after all. Someone searching "gay lifestyle" is looking to find information on the "gay way of life"; GLAAD objects to this phrase that: "There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle." Well, obviously, and I rather doubt anyone meant to imply that. But if we expand this unrealistic conception that some people are said to have, and acknowledge that the gay community is full of unique people, while also acknowledging that there are some customs and behaviors that significant portions of those people share, we've now outlined the concept of gay culture. So I suspect that anyone searching "gay lifestyle" is looking for information on gay culture (i.e., the lifestyle choices common among gays), and if anything would be astonishing to that person, it would be instead arriving at an article about an anti-gay speech community.
 * Of course, gay culture doesn't redirect to LGBT culture: it redirects to Gay men with a hatnote to LGBT culture. So I'm thinking I'll vote to retarget Gay lifestyle there and keep Homosexual lifestyle where it is, adding R from non-neutral to both. But I'm quite open to further discussion of this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples of mainstream/scholarly sources describing the term(s) as pejorative or more broadly anti-LGBT:Leaving conjecture aside, the sourcing is quite strong to include both "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual lifestyle" under anti-LGBT rhetoric, and I have yet to come across any RSes that suggest otherwise for the terms' current usage. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * to either page mentioned in nom. Both are less surprising and more fitting than the current redirect. Jno.skinner (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget with hatnote: . While yes, the term can be used to refer to "the lifestyle of gay people", and I've heard it that way on occasion, it's far more often used in a pejorative sense, which is backed up by RS as seen above. That's true even if some editors personally disagree with those RS. As for r non-neutral, yes, such redirects are valid, but when possible they should point to articles that discuss their non-neutrality, not articles about the topic they refer to. The canonical example here being, which points to , not to the Hillary Clinton article itself. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the nomination statement that there is no mention of "lifestyle' at the target. The Criticism section has: Some consider the very notion of "separatism", or a group lifestyle, alienating ..., although it is a citation needed, since long.  - Jay (Talk) 03:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there is no source cited, that sentence could be referring to a kind of separatist, communal society à la the Furies Collective, which is not unique to or characteristic of LGBT culture in general, or the very notion of the "gay lifestyle" described above, which falls under the umbrella of anti-LGBT rhetoric. The latter certainly would seem alienating, but not because of anything to do with LGBT culture itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget with hatnote per . It is not immediately obvious this is a derogatory term so the hatnote will deal with any innocent searches for the term. Polyamorph (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget. As the sources provided above demonstrate, these terms aren't generally used to refer to LGBT culture, but as a pejorative term for homosexuality itself. Anti-LGBT rhetoric is the appropriate place to cover that meaning.--Trystan (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget with a hatnote per Tamzin and Polyamorph. While it can be used to refer to LGBTQ+ culture this is not the contemporary primary meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget with the suggested hatnote. ¶ Btw, "heterosexual lifestyle" redirects to Heterosexuality. It seems that "heterosexual lifestyle" should not redirect at all, but perhaps there's a reason? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The few sources I've seen seem to be using that term as a conscious satire of the idea of a "homosexual lifestyle". I doubt Heterosexuality is an ideal target. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget with hatnote per Tamzin. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Connectivity queriy
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 20:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Connectivity queriy → Web search query (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible typo, but a longstanding one. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Implausible typo for query. No other redirect on Wikipedia has this word in it.  - Jay (Talk) 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Low pageviews (~10/year) mean that it's unlikely that this unusual typo is being used anywhere. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have created a redirect at Connectivity query. The typo is unlikely to be ever used on Wikipedia and unlikely to be searched. HappyMouse2 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * HappyMouse2 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Static field
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 disambiguate  . signed,Rosguill talk 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Static field → Field (physics) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think "static field" might be shorthand for "static electricity field," which is a plausible abbreviation. Electrostatics is the study of static electricity, and there is a Field (physics). We could refine to there, although when I searched "static field" in Google, the first result I returned was this programming language definition. Disambiguating might be possible, but I would need someone who knows more about computer programming to point out a possible target there. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Class variable would be the appropriate equivalent in programming, and specifically the section Class variable. That article says: .. in Java, the terms "field" and "variable" are used interchangeably ..  - Jay (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can confirm the phrase "static field" is widely used in Java and C++ for "static member variable". See "Fields that have the static modifier in their declaration are called static fields or class variables." and  "Static fields in Java" peterl (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate (drafted) for the two meanings mentioned above, and any others that anyone can find. FWIW I linked from the draft dab page. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per anon 61's draft.  Jay (Talk) 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Screen mask
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Screen mask → Form (programming) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure what it is. Unless it is same as an Image mask.  - Jay (Talk) 06:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wagn (software)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * <span id="Wagn (software)">Wagn (software) → Fred G. Meyer (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Probably delete? This redirect doesn't make any sense. See Talk%3AList_of_wiki_software for someone else who noticed this. Alternatively redirect back to List_of_wiki_software which is where I found it. The Wagn project has apparently been renamed Decko. Alex Muller 08:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, it doesn't make any sense. Searches for "Fred G. Meyer" + "Decko" or "Wagn" come up with nothing. He's in a different field. The only remote possibility is that his philanthropy contributed to that software, but I can't find any mention of it. As a side note, I've removed it from the List of wiki software on the basis of WP:NN and WP:WTAF peterl (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This redirect has an extensive history that helps explain things. Wagn was apparently the software used by a Connectipedia. It looks like this topic has a history of COI editing; I would guess someone related to Connectipedia paid people to create lots of articles about it. Anyway, Wagn was never remotely notable, so it was merged into Connectipedia; Connectipedia wasn't notable either, so it was redirected to Fred G. Meyer, whose namesake trust fund apparently bankrolled the creation of both the software and the wiki that used it. Connectipedia and a couple of related directs were deleted at RfD a couple of months ago in a discussion with no participation. I suppose we could always add a mention of the project to the current target section, but I'm not sure the topic is notable enough to merit one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks @Compassionate727 peterl (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for explaining! Alex Muller  17:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bug scrub
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24%23Bug scrub

Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 List of active separatist movements in Europe. (non-admin closure)  <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia → Transnistria conflict (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Transnistria and Gagauzia had their separate conflicts. They are not directly related, so this redirect is pointless. Super  Ψ   Dro  19:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of active separatist movements in Europe which functions as a set index for the two, or revert to the article in the page history per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no point in restoring the unsourced article and having an article about two merged conflicts one of which already has its own page (Transnistria conflict). And there's really no point either in this redirect, only in Wikipedia I've heard these two conflicts being referred to collectively, I doubt it is useful. What if someone made a redirect like Regionalist and independentist movements in the Aosta Valley, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, the Province of Trieste, Lombardy, Northern Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, South Tyrol and Veneto and just redirected it to List of active separatist movements in Europe? Would it be kept? It would undoubtedly be see as an absurd redirect with no use. I regard this redirect as the same. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 06:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Thryduulf. If this were a brand-new creation, I'd probably !vote to delete per Super Dromaeosaurus, but this was its own article from 2005 to 2008. The 16,288 pageviews that this has gotten since 2015 strongly suggest that people are still clicking on old links to this from when it was an article. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Thryduulf. Plausible search term (see e.g. ). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Marcus Jannes
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  10:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Marcus Jannes → Death of Brandon Vedas (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Can't find any relationship between Marcus and Brandon Vedas, other than the fact that both died due to drug overdose and livestreamed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Jannes appears to be non-notable. Fyndegil (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete absent a mention at the Vedas article. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Denver Wolverines
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  04:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Denver Wolverines → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Seattle Force → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Dallas Dragons → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Orange County Outlaws → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Houston Hornets → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Los Angeles Raiders Rugby League Football Club → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Los Angeles Raiders RLFC → USA Rugby League (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I'm posting this RFD for C87d98b10. His rationale for this redirect deletion is: "my rationale is that the team in question was proposed (at least according to the original article) to be a development team for an amateur league a decade ago that never materialised. It basically never went any further than an idea as far as it's possible to tell. It was only redirected to the USARL article on the basis that this article had a mention of it, but I had to remove this as the source provided was a deadlink and I was unable to locate any other RS's to verify that this club even existed as an idea and isn't pure OR. I hope that helps, many thanks for your assistance.


 * Same rationale for Seattle Force, Dallas Dragons, Orange County Outlaws and Houston Hornets, which have all been de-PRODed by another user. c87d98b10"

Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all as per my nom. None of these clubs have sourced coverage at the target article and there's no evidence any of these got any further than a thought over a decade ago. c87d98b10 01:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all due to a lack of mention. I have bundled in the rest of the redirects, based on the list of "developing" teams listed at the target when these were created. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.