Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17

June 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2022.

Purely transcendental extension
 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 Field extension. signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Purely transcendental extension → Field extension (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Purely transcendental → Transcendence degree (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These should redirect to the same article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I assume there is no objection in turning transcendence degree article to transcendental extension. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (Yes, this is definitely problematic.) I would say both should redirect to transcendence degree, though, ideally, there should be a standalone article on transcendental extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect both to Field extension. Both redirects refer to purely transcental extensions, which are a special type of transcendental extensions.    Presently,  is a redirect to Field extension, and this section contains an anchor "purely transcendental". The target Transcendence degree must be avoided per WP:LEAST, since the transcendence degree is another subtopic of Transcendental extension that is otherwise not really related to purely transcendental extensions. So, both targets must be either Field extension or Field extension, which link both to the same section. The redirect to the anchor must be preferred as more specific (WP:LEAST again). As this seems very clear, I'll bodly retarget  to Field extension (schrinked because this must be done by the closing editor). If  agrees, this discussion can be speedily closed per WP:SNOWBALL. D.Lazard (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this cannot speedily be closed given the first comment in the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that, while transcendence degree is a subtopic, many examples of transcendental extensions appear in the transcendence degree; i.e., the article name does not quite match the actual content. (Note also the article trans deg article has more extensive discussion of transcendence basis.) So, contrary to the article title, redirects to transcendence degree makes more sense. In any case, the proper thing is to do turn transcendence degree into a transcendental extension article (and this can be done with no much efforts). It is simply weird that there is an article on trans deg while there is no article on trans extension (and this is the reason why we get this weird redirect situation). —- Taku (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, if there is no objection I would be turning transcendence degree article to transcendental extension article. —- Taku (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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.

GreatAgain
 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 04:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * GreatAgain → Presidential transition of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I suggest this should be deleted, alongside Great Again as the redirects are unhelpful and vague. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's some merit to those redirects. Even though "make america great again" is so overused and could refer to a number of different things, "greatagain" and "great again" do kinda make sense.
 * GreatAgain as one word can refer to that webpage. I'd suggest redirecting to the "Beginning of transition process" section as the website actually is mentioned there.
 * Great Again as two words kinda is related to the Crippled America page because at the top, it mentions that the book was republished as paperback and titled "Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America". Whether anyone actually refers to his book as just "Great Again", I dunno.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Great Again as two words kinda is related to the Crippled America page because at the top, it mentions that the book was republished as paperback and titled "Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America". Whether anyone actually refers to his book as just "Great Again", I dunno.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The webpage is all lowercase, like the redirect Greatagain.gov. The lowercase Greatagain does not exist. Thus this redirect is potentially ambiguous and confusing. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2022 (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.

The Gryffindor Chasers
 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  14:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Gryffindor Chasers → Dumbledore's Army (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Quiddich redirect that ended up pointing to a nonsense target following a series of mergers and deletions. There is an unsourced stub in the page history, but it wouldn't survive an AFD. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete – I can't find a suitable target for this redirect. It's probably too narrow and fancrufty a topic for us to cover. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2022 (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.

Conservative Resident
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 2%23Conservative Resident

Java Edition
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27%23Java Edition

Triple threat (entertainer)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27%23Triple threat (entertainer)

Sonic Chrono Adventure
 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 unofficial Sonic media. signed,Rosguill talk 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sonic Chrono Adventure → Sonic: After the Sequel (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Misleading. The redirect only receives two mentions in the article. LBWP (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * How is that misleading then if it is indeed mentioned? Regards So  Why  10:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 03:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom literally gave the reason why this redirect should stay. Captain  Galaxy  12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Only mentioned in passing, anyone searching this would be confused why they have been taken to this article, and would be unlikely to find what they were looking for. Would be best if a section could be added to List of unofficial Sonic media, however. A7V2 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is added to that list, we can always retarget it there. But until then, a little bit of information is better than none. Regards So  Why  10:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any information though. It is just a passing mention, the kind that would warrant a link if this had an article. Someone searching this would be left confused as to why they came to this page, and shouldn't have to waste their time reading the whole article (or using ctrl+F) to find why they were taken to the target. If this was deleted, then search would turn up the current target but with the added context about this being a sequel right there in the search. A7V2 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote, see below. A7V2 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per A7V2. The search results page is more helpful than the redirect in this case. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.2em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 10:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Refine to Sonic: After the Sequel where its place in the series is made clear. Jay (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of unofficial Sonic media per nom to the anchor I created there. Jay (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Okay wow, I didn't know this discussion was still being relisted. I agree with that a little information is better than none. I've gone ahead and added some brief coverage of the game to the List of unofficial Sonic media page, at 's suggestion. Apologies for jumping back into this discussion incredibly late but this should serve as a suitable retarget. LBWP (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Retarget to List of unofficial Sonic media now that mention has been added. A7V2 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2022 (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.

Coastal waters
<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 Coast. Further discussions can happen at Talk:Coastal waters.  Jay (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Coastal waters → Territorial waters (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

marine coastal ecosystems is a better option for this redirect (under 'overview' in para 2 it talks about coastal seas). Territorial waters is not appropriate as they can stretch out dozens kilometers away from the shore into the pelagic. EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Coast. I think marine coastal ecosystems is a bit too specific for this rather general redirect, there are all sorts of other properties of coastal waters that are not related to either it's ecology or the country that owns it. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Coast is entirely about land, so I don't agree with that as a target. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Coast would be my second choice as a redirect. It could work. I don't think that "coast is entirely about land". See the lead of coast which says "as the area where land meets the ocean, or as a line that forms the boundary between the land and the ocean or a lake". Therefore, coastal waters is the water close to the coast, right? Another option could be Continental shelf. But marine coastal ecosystems would work quite fine, I think. EMsmile (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Coastal waters is the water for some distance (several miles) out along the coast. Coast is about the land near the point where it meets the water - the other side of the line (and perhaps a little bit of the water where the tide ebbs). <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree Marine coastal ecosystem may be a bit too specific. I can't seem to identify a clearly good target. Options include Littoral zone and Continental shelf. Littoral zone is probably more on point, but the Continental shelf article is a little broader in content. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mdewman6, those are good suggestions, too (both articles seem a bit weak on first sight but that might change in future, I hope). EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The biggest problem here is that there is no clear meaning of the term. See this. The best solution would be for someone to write a short article explaining this, a WP:BCA. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Disambiguate. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Joy, Mdewman6 and User:MB: The disambiguate might be a good solution. So we could say that coastal waters may refer to territorial waters, coast, marine coastal ecosystem, Littoral zone and Continental shelf - without actually expressing a preference. There are not that many articles that link to coastal waters yet, see here. Those wikilinks would have to be adjusted then? EMsmile (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is fine, if we have articles for various more specific meanings, and there references are indeed to them, then they should be pointed there. It's also possible to create helper redirects with disambiguation markers, like e.g. coastal waters (some topic) if that will help the disambiguation process in the articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another definition by coastal water in the EU is here (for what it's worth): "Coastal waters represent the interface between land and ocean, and in the context of the Water Framework Directive coastal waters include water, that has not been designated as transitional water, extending one nautical mile from a baseline defined by the land points where territorial waters are measured.". EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.2em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The term coastal waters is fluid (no pun intended) in the sense that it means somewhat different things according to the context in which the term is used. It has specific meanings in the context of commercial coastal shipping, and somewhat different meanings in the context of naval littoral warfare. Oceanographers and marine biologists have yet other takes. Some of these differences are mentioned in littoral zone. Coastal fishermen focused on catching coastal fish and the need to construct coastal fishing boats have another perspective on what they mean when they refer to "coastal waters". Tourist operators focused on beaches and seaside resorts, as well as coastal property developers and coastal engineers no doubt have other perpectives. Researchers interested in things like transitional waters (as mentioned in 's comment immediately above), water pollution or sewerage disposal will have other takes. There are also legal and international views on what the term means or should mean. I agree with  that the term is a broad concept, and warrants an article of its own rather than a straight disambiguation page. — Epipelagic (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this discussion is at RFD, the main point here is whether we should have a redirect or not. The finer details of what the article should be - are a separate content issue and can be resolved later. For example, you can have a disambiguation page or a list article first, and then develop it into a broad concept article eventually. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - does that mean the discussion above about a disambiguation page is equally inappropriate? Very well, I withdraw my input, though that shouldn't be interpretated as support for replacing the redirect with a disambiguation page. As to whether there should be a redirect or not, I favour both options. If there is to be a redirect then it should be to a section in Coast called "Coastal waters" (which will need to be created to deal with the actual issues). If there is not to be a redirect then coastal waters should have it's own article (which will also need to be created to deal with the actual issues). — Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply anything was inappropriate, just that we can streamline this discussion if we can get a more rough consensus that would make progress, even if the ultimate solution is still not written. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thanks, Epipelagic very useful inputs. If we have good references for the content that you have proposed then this would speak for a new stand-alone article for "coastal waters" (or like you poposed: initially a redirect to a section called "coastal waters" within the coast article). I think we have reached consensus that the current status quo where "coastal waters" redirects to territorial waters needs to be changed. I suggest we either start off with a disambiguation page for now or a list type article until someone has time to develop some new text along the lines that Epipelagic has proposed. At that point it could be fleshed out inside of coast and then later into a sub-article (if there is enough content). EMsmile (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've received some content inputs from an external expert which I have now placed on the talk page of "coastal waters", see here. With this content inputs plus the content above by Epipelagic I think we have enough to add some text to coast under a section called "coastal waters", and possibly later spin it off into a stand-alone article. Hence my proposal to redirect coastal waters to Coast for now. If yes then we could now close the discussion here and continue content-wise on the talk page of coastal waters. EMsmile (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Coast per above. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 23:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now set up the new content at Coast. Can I just change the redirect myself or do I have to wait for someone else to close this discussion? EMsmile (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not change the redirect. An uninvolved editor will take care of that, probably tomorrow when this last relisting hits seven days. Your addition gives us a pseudo-BCA for a target, which should satisfy everyone. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 23:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Coast per the growing consensus above. Seems like the best option, for now at least. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2022 (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.

Internet Explorer 12
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 28%23Internet Explorer 12

Boonwurrung (disambiguation)
<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 Speedy deleted by an admin  . Creator of the redirect admitted that the redirect was only accidentally created. As such, it was G14'd accordingly. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * <span id="Boonwurrung (disambiguation)">Boonwurrung (disambiguation) → Boon wurrung (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Evidently left over after page moves; in any case, disambiguation not needed where there is one primary topic. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 07:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah this was a mistake sorry! Poketama (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2022 (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.

Dde highways
<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  .  Jay (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Dde highways → Interstate Highway System (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

No uses/links. Short for "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Seems unlikely anyone would search on this, especially with this capitalization. Google search finds one similar hit on "DDE's highways" in a railfan blog post. Delete. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 05:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete—per nom, this is not something in use nor potentially useful.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -per nom. When I saw the notice placed on WT:USRD I honestly had no clue what Dde meant. Dave (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Bulldog1979 (known as Imzadi 1979 on here) about the deletion. Please delete this as I didnt know if this would be suitable for highways. I was having a bad day the day of creation. Sorry for the confusion! 😖 Snowc776 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2022 (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.

U.S. Route 78 in Georgia and South Carolina
<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 Procedural close  . Wrong venue. Nomination seems to be in error, as both pages nominated are articles, not redirects. (non-admin closure)  <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.2em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 02:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Reason: All sections should be in one group.--2600:1700:6180:6290:B035:F1A4:CC25:7A4C (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * U.S. Route 78 in South Carolina to U.S. Route 78
 * U.S. Route 78 in Georgia to U.S. Route 78
 * 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.