Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 13 | 38 | 51 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
- If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first or that it has become broken through vandalism.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirect
user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Closing notes
- Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
STEP I. | Tag the redirect.
Enter
|
STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
|
STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages. |
- Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
Current list
January 15
Biblical literature
- Biblical literature → Biblical canon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Biblical Literature → Biblical canon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No mention at the target, and I have no idea what this is trying to refer to. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate according to this [1]. (Old Testament, New Testament, Intertestamental works, and New Testament Apocrypha. Carpimaps (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense, as the Society of Biblical Literature exists for "academic study of the Bible and related ancient literature". – Fayenatic London 22:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's not disambiguation, that's explaining what the term means, which seems consistent with "A biblical canon is a set of texts which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as part of the Bible." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The current situation is satisfactory. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 17:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Subsequently
- Subsequently → Subsequence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirects to mathematical concept, not the ideal solution. Not really the title of any encyclopaedic topic from what I can see. Retarget to the cross-project redirect at subsequent in lieu of a more direct soft redirect to wikt:subsequently. Second choice delete. A distant third choice: retarget to Time#Sequence of events. J947 † edits 10:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Subsequent as most useful to a would-be searcher. A7V2 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to wikt:subsequently. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to wikt:subsequently per Mdewman6. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Subsequent or soft redirect to wikt:subsequently?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Bible and Tanach
- Bible and Tanach → Biblical canon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Bible and Tanakh → Biblical canon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:XY, so I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, because both the Bible and the Tanakh are discussed there as biblical canons. Duckmather (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Bible as to me this seems most likely what someone searching this is looking for (as opposed to some specific "The Bible" which a searcher might expect to find at Bible). Second preference to keep per Duckmather. A7V2 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Vip
- Vip → VIP (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Vip should be redirected to Very important person, which is the redirect target of VIP. Vip can be pronounced "/vɪp/" or "/viː'aɪ.piː/, but I think the previous pronunciation is fine. I have a source where "vip" is not only read all caps, and it is this: "1". 176.88.87.119 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Linux distributions
- Linux distributions → Linux distribution (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Linux distrobutions → List of Linux distributions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These should have the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Seven Two
- Seven Two → Texas hold 'em starting hands (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect should be retargeted to 7two because Seven Two isn’t mentioned anywhere in the current target except the hatnote. Bassie f (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The redirect was presumably created because seven two offsuit is the worst possible starting hand in Texas hold 'em. This is indeed not mentioned at the current target, though it probably should be. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
2022 Garry's Mod hacking incident
- 2022 Garry's Mod hacking incident → Garry's Mod (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading redirect: The game was not "hacked" in 2022. IceWelder [✉] 09:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Life of Christ
- Life of Christ → Life of Jesus in the New Testament (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A RM at Talk:Life of Christ in art#Requested move 8 December 2015 decided this redirect's current target; I disagree with this. The redirect should be retargetted to Life of Christ (disambiguation), because there is no primary topic for this title and it is the name of numerous works. I have already fixed all the incoming wikilinks. Veverve (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Veverve: if you think there is no primary topic for "Life of Christ" then this should be an WP:RM of Life of Christ (disambiguation) to Life of Christ, not an RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: the closer at the 2015 RM said
to take that redirect to WP:RFD if you feel strongly it should point elsewhere
. Veverve (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- @Veverve: Yes, but Life of Christ cannot redirect to Life of Christ (disambiguation): it would be WP:MALPLACED. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: the closer at the 2015 RM said
- Keep The New Testament story is almost certainly the primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Life of Jesus goes to a disam page - that one should go to Life of Jesus in the New Testament. Life of Christ is sufficiently different. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Both Jesus and Christ link to the same page. Therefore, Life of Jesus and Life of Christ should link to the same target. Veverve (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Move the dab page to the base name, possibly merge with Life of Jesus. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp and Presidentman: Do you think that Life of Jesus and Life of Christ should be treated differently, as your !votes suggest? Srnec (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. Both should be primary redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Primary redirect for this name. I agree the others that Life of Jesus should also redirect to the current target of Life of Jesus in the New Testament. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the redirect appears to have a connection or inter-dependence with Life of Jesus, and almost all participants had an opinion on its primacy of the latter, I am bundling it here. And given that this is a late bundling, a closer is free to skip it if they think this RfD is ready for close; or if the nom thinks this makes the original RfD more confusing, I can revert it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)- @Jay: I do think it makes the RfD more confusing. I did not think the original RfD would be a place to discuss another redirect, for the sake of clarity, but some users did. Veverve (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have reverted the bundling, and Life of Jesus (disambiguation) may be nominated as a fresh RfD. Jay 💬 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jay: I do think it makes the RfD more confusing. I did not think the original RfD would be a place to discuss another redirect, for the sake of clarity, but some users did. Veverve (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
YQ xWvX1n9g
- YQ xWvX1n9g → Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Seems to be the youtube URL for the target video. Not sure why it was created but it doesn't appear to be used. Rusalkii (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete not something someone looking up the topic would think to use as a search term.--65.93.195.22 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Weird and pointless. The creator makes a lot of unnecessary redirects. Most are not as bizarre as this one but it might merit investigation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Green Jelloe
- Green Jelloe → Green Jellÿ (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This heavy metal Eubot redirect was created for the band's original name (Green Jellö), but it hasn't been used much since January 2015. Not sure why we still need it lying around if it's essentially collecting dust in the search bar. Regards, SONIC678 04:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Nabbit
- Nabbit → Characters in the Mario franchise (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6 § Redirects to List of Mario franchise characters – Retarget nabbit, delete the rest
Please delete this redirect, I notice no section in the target article that mention's Nabbit's name. 45.72.195.21 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore redirect to New Super Mario Bros. U#Gameplay, where this is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6#Redirects to List of Mario franchise characters. czar 07:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks like Nabbit was removed by Landfish7's in this edit back in September. In the edit summary, this talk page discussion is referenced. However, there was another discussion started a few months later that created a criteria for the article. "
To be included in this list, a character must either have their own, stand-alone article or have appeared in four Mario games, of any sub-series.
The second one is the one that matters in this case. Briefly looking at an unreliable source suggests that the second criteria would be easily fulfilled as long as useable references can be found. (Some brief searches suggest that this is possible.) Before I start digging up sources, I think it might be best if the criteria used could be discussed by the users that participated in both linked discussion as it would be silly to re-add Nabbit to the article, only for consensus there to re-remove Nabbit, and force us to re-discuss the redirect in the near future. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (Amended: Would also support Czar's suggestion to have this point instead to a section in New Super Mario Bros. U. There is also an alternative target at New Super Luigi U where Nabbit is discussed more. Amended by Super Goku V (talk) on 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC).)
January 14
Landspeed
- Landspeed → List of auto racing films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Landspeed is a 2002 auto racing film. The page history shows this used to be an article tagged for notability. This is now a redirect to List of auto racing films, where the film is not listed. GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)
- Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group) → Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:R#DELETE, n. 3 ("(splinter group)"). Veverve (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm unsure what is meant by the rationale. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}}; the article in the redirect was an article for over 6 years during 2010–2016; the current redirect was the result of a WP:BLAR which was done in response to a WP:PROD tag. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)- I think the verdict may be out on whether or not the term "splinter group" is inherently derogatory. For the most part, I thought the term means that it's something that left or broke of from a larger group. With that being said, the undisambiguated version of this redirect, Latin Rite Catholic Church, is a redirect that targets Latin Church ... but it used to target Latin Rite ... which is now a redirect that targets Latin liturgical rites (the phrase "Latin Rite Catholic Church" is currently not mentioned anywhere in Latin liturgical rites), so it doesn't even seem clear where the ambiguous version should target. I think at this point ... my vote is keep unless action is also taken with Latin Rite Catholic Church (such as merging it into this nomination) since I do not agree with the nominator's rationale, but would consider different action if Latin Rite Catholic Church is bundled with this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Not even funny
- Not even funny → Time in Russia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I do not understand what this redirect is even about. It's possible that it has been intended towards a different page and Time in Russia was accidentally selected. Randi Moth (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no clue why that even exists, not sure anyone would search that up to find Time in Russia. MasterMatt12💬 ● Contributions 22:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I didn't know what is the relationship between "not even funny" and time zones in Russia. This is most likely vandalism. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: rubbish. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete; the redirect is implausible and is completely unrelated to the current target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Variety of jacksfilms redirects
- Klessig → Jacksfilms#Personal life (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Me Me Big Boy → Jacksfilms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Erin is the Funny One → Jacksfilms#Erin is the Funny One podcast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gamergod88 → Jacksfilms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The Sideburns Crew → Jacksfilms#Collaborations and other appearances (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Intern 2 → Jacksfilms#MyMusic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Kristen Klessig → Jacksfilms#Personal life (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Most of these redirects originate as valid redirects to sections within the article at the time, however the article has been halved in size as a form of removing WP:FANCRUFT since, and therefore there is no more mention of these topics on the article. Kristen Klessig and Klessig are similar in being from a person mentioned in the article in the past, but that section was removed in 2012 due to not having a valid source and never restored.
I support deletion, unless these sections get restored with reliable secondary sources showing notability. Randi Moth (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete most: As noted, most of these are from older revision of the article that are now gone. The one exception to deletion would be Intern 2 as that could be retargeted to MyMusic#Cast and characters or List of MyMusic characters. There is also a less likely alternative: Retarget to List of former Central States Wrestling personnel as Thomas Andersen went by the name Intern #2 for a number of years. (There are at least four other NWA Championship articles that mention this: US Mid-America, World San Francisco, World Mid-America, World Central States) After that, I don't see any practical uses for Intern 2. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW
- Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW → Wikipedia:Not now (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible redirect. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: the creation summary –
I'm getting sick of people randomly, often incorrectly, quoting WP:NOTNOTNOW. If people want to play Top Trumps rather than present a valid argument, and crats have no intention of stopping them, this shortcut may as well exist
. I think this is a valid form of expression, if not an effective one. Deletion ten years later seems harsh. J947 † edits 04:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC) - Keep per J947. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Team Athenia
- Team Athenia → Transformers: Animated#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Since List of Transformers: Animated characters was merged into Transformers: Animated in February 2022, this group of characters (?) doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Suck cock
seems to be profane in nature Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: we have redirects such as sucking cock, suck dick and sucking dick which redirect to fellatio. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep profanity is not a valid rationale for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, a plausible redirect is a plausible redirect, even if profane. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Siege of Marinka
- Siege of Marinka → Battle of Marinka (2022-23) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Marinka has never been sieged. Consider deleting Siege of Marinka (2022) too. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – This is a {{R from move}}. The fact that the article was called a siege in the first place should show that it's plausible for someone to search for it with a siege. As the edit summary for moving it states, "Siege is only mentioned in one source, which has since been deleted", so at least some external sites erroneously show that it's a siege. This redirect also gets hundreds of views per day after the move, so it's obviously useful. In regards to it being incorrect, {{R from incorrect name}} can be added to the Rcatshell.
- Siege of Marinka (2022) is also an {{R from move}}, but it has stayed up for less than a day as the page's name, so it's far less likely for someone to link to it, and indeed it barely gets any views. Deleting it would make more sense. Randi Moth (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Where's the d10?
- Where's the d10? → Platonic solid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I can't find any reference that showed a relation between "Where's the d10" and the Platonic solid. The redirect is not plausible. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: The user who created that redirect has made multiple edits that have had to be reverted due to their content and harm. Presumably, this is another similar edit they made due to the mention of non-standard dice. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. A D10 is not even a Platonic solid, but this is too implausible even to redirect to the right shape. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete because the redirect and target are completely unrelated. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
John Mills (Kent cricketer)
- John Mills (Kent cricketer) → List of English cricketers to 1771#1741 to 1745 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mills (Kent cricketer) in 2019. Recreated by a suspected sockpuppet of BlackJack - the original creator - although no formal link has ever been proved between the accounts. As a result I don't think this is eligible for speedy deletion so it'll need to come here. Let me know if that's not the case as there are, predictably, more of these. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, this redirect is not eligible for WP:G5 since it was created by a sockpuppet master prior to the master being blocked. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Coronation chair
- Coronation chair → Coronation Chair (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think this should be a DAB page. Plausible targets include Coronation Chair of Denmark, Chair of St. Peter, and any other chairs/thrones used especially for coronations. Would like opinions on if the British chair is a primary topic or not. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment if this is ambiguous enough to merit a dab, then Coronation Chair should be redirected to the dab as well, and the article currently at the capitalized title should be moved to something like St. Edward's Chair (an alternate name mentioned in the article’s lead) or Coronation Chair of the United Kingdom. Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)- I agree in theory, but there might be a plausible case to be made for "Coronation Chair" as a separate article per WP:DIFFCAPS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Unpartitioned India
- Unpartitioned India → Akhand Bharat (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
All the results I can see on Google Scholar and Books use this phrase in the context of British India prior to partition. Redirecting to Presidencies and provinces of British India seems most appropriate, but a section of History of India may be an alternative as well. Either seems more appropriate than the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to whichever article best covers India as a whole prior to the partition, a quick look suggests that British Raj might be the best but I'm happy to consider other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget, although I am not suggesting a specific page to retarget to because there are multiple candidates. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to British Raj. "Unpartitioned India" translates into Hindi as "Akhand Bharat", but the English term is mostly used in reference to the Partition of India, whereas the latter term has come to be associated with specific groups who use to mean something similar to Greater India. British Raj is the most appropriate target. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple potential targets have been proposed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
FreeListener.com
- FreeListener.com → Free Law Project (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This domain is currently for sale, and thus is not an appropriate redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I have found that in trying to go through old sources when a webpage is dead, that wikipedia is one of the few places that tends to have historical URL information (generally in the form of unmentioned redirects). I do think there is a potential hazard; however, in having this redirect exist without in some way indicating that the URL is dead without violating WP:NODISCLAIMERS in the process. I can't see a great way to thread that needle, hence my weak keep. I think that it would be a bit awkward to shoehorn a mention of their now usurped URL into the article body and {{Infobox company}} does not have a parameter for something similar. I would feel more comfortable with my keep vote if there were a way to better indicate that the website was their website for informational purposes, but that as well indicates it has been usurped. TartarTorte 12:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question for @TartarTorte: Would it be possible to append <br>FreeListener.com <small>(Former)</small> or something similar in the website parameter at the article and {{R from former name}} be possible to use for for the redirect? I get that it isn't a perfect suggestion, but it might work if the goal is to keep the redirect. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V I wouldn't be opposed to it. I think that's probably the best way to get around the problem. It gives a mention on the page which makes the redirect easier to argue for. TartarTorte 15:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I have decided to be bold and add it to the article with this edit. Hopefully there will be no problems with how it is formatted. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V I wouldn't be opposed to it. I think that's probably the best way to get around the problem. It gives a mention on the page which makes the redirect easier to argue for. TartarTorte 15:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Ontario, CA
CTW-31
This redirect page should be deleted, because this callsign is not a legitimate callsign for the target, and no other subjects use this callsign. Bassie f (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series)
- Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series) → Unlikely Angel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am very confused here – A 2007 AfD resulted with redirecting this to the 1996 TV film Unlikely Angel. But I can find absolutely no linkage between to two projects except for Dolly Parton – the 1994 TV series otherwise has a completely different cast than the 1996 TV film. So what to do here?... Because an AfD result kept the article as a redirect, it probably shouldn't be deleted. But it shouldn't redirect to Unlikely Angel. And the Dolly Parton article doesn't even mention this series, though Dolly Parton filmography does mention this series – So should this maybe redirect to Dolly Parton filmography instead? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here are some relevant sources, for context: [2], [3], [4]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead an officially propose that this be retargetted to Dolly Parton filmography – it's the only article that even contains sources for the 1994 series. The current target, Unlikely Angel, has nothing to do with this TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Transwiki
- Transwiki → Wiki#Controlling changes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in section or page, don't see what transwiki has to do with this section. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Soft Redirect to m:Help:Transwiki. It's also where Help:Transwiki points to --Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- That would be recreating something similar to the redirect previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 19. Delete due to lack of mention. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- That would probably be okay if this redirect was not in the article space. Since it is in the article space, it would probably be more appropriate to retarget this title to the Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Non-mainspace "transwiki" redirects should probably continue to target Wikipedia:Transwiki log rather than pointing to Meta. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft retarget to Wiktionary:transwiki per WP:SOFTSP as this title is apparently a recreation per Pppery. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't make much sense to me either. People looking for a definition of this obscure piece of Wiki-jargon are likely to know enough about namespaces so as to not use this search term. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm valid point ... after I realized the link to "Help:Transwiki" on Wiktionary is for m:Help:Transwiki. I wonder ... I don't think we usually create disambiguation pages that are a mix of namespaces and/or sister projects, but it may be needed here. (This thought hasn't changed my current stance on the fate of this redirect though.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't make much sense to me either. People looking for a definition of this obscure piece of Wiki-jargon are likely to know enough about namespaces so as to not use this search term. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be open to any fate for this page, but my stance is that this concept extends beyond mediawiki (and therefore solely-internal matters) and is encyclopedic; whether ww currently have content about it is orthogonal to the possibility of pointing an inquirer to at least the context within which the term is usable. Arlo James Barnes 07:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Katherine Agapay
- Katherine Agapay → Laguna (province) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect from a person to a province makes no sense. It might as well redirect to Earth. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, the person in question seems to the vice-governor of the province, so there is at least something that relates to the two together (i.e. it's not completely random, as implied by the nominator). I tagged it as a redirect from a person as couldn't see a strong enough reason to consider it useless (i.e. it has some usefulness, if very little). Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment would Vice Governor's meet WP:POLITICIAN? If so we should delete the redirect per WP:REDLINK.--Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Laguna_Provincial_Board#List_of_members, which seems the most helpful target; where the most information on Agapay is. It is isn't a completely illogical redirect as it stands – she is mentioned in the province's article. J947 † edits 04:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
CTV-31
This redirect page should be deleted because this callsign is not a legitimate callsign for the target. Edit: I want someone to retarget this redirect to Broadcast Enterprises and Affiliated Media, which has a mention of the redirect, and not be deleted. Bassie f (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Broadcast Enterprises and Affiliated Media which uses this. A7V2 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Broadcast Enterprises and Affiliated Media per A7V2. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
January 13
The Arena (Walt Disney World)
- The Arena (Walt Disney World) → ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex#The Arena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The arena at Walt Disney World apparently sold its naming rights to AdventHealth and no longer operates under this name. However, its current name AdventHealth Arena is already a redirect to the existing page. CrownKing0wl (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Refine target to ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex#AdventHealth Arena and tag as {{R from former name}}. It still seems like a plausible search term to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Refine target to ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex#AdventHealth Arena as per Presidentman. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Refine target to ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex#AdventHealth Arena and tag as both {{R from former name}} and {{R avoided double redirect|AdventHealth Arena}}. "The Arena" is what it was called when it opened in 2018.[5] Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
John Cutbush (cricketer)
James Bryant (Kent cricketer)
John Bryant (cricketer)
Tom Peake
Ridgeway (Sussex cricketer)
Oil (road)
- Oil (road) → Bitumen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Seems in regards to the current target, this redirect may not be accurate. The more accurate target may be Asphalt concrete, but even then the redirect may still be inaccurate. Either target is not about a road made of oil, even though oil, specifically petroleum, is either where the product is derived (Bitumen) or one material of various materials used in the topic (Asphalt concrete). Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - the idea is that it is a verb used in several old newspapers. --Rschen7754 01:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Alternatives to asphalt
- Alternatives to asphalt → Bitumen#Alternatives and bioasphalt (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could potentially be ambiguous since "asphalt" could also refer to Asphalt concrete, and alternatives to that could include any material that can be used to make a road. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- This should be changed to "Alternatives to Bitumen" as the target itself is referencing Bitumen. Id also argue a move discussion is not needed as it is a result of the move in Bitumen. Garfie489 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Asphaltum oil wells
- Asphaltum oil wells → Bitumen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I'm not sure how helpful this redirect really is. There is some mention once about oil wells in the target article, but not the specific phrase. Also, Asphaltum oil well, the singular version, does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Asphaltum typically designates a species of bitumen, including dark-colored, comparatively hard, and non-volatile solids; composed of hydrocarbons, substantially free from oxygenated bodies and crystallizable paraffin; sometimes associated with mineral matter, the non-mineral constituents being difficultly fusible and mostly soluble in carbon disulfide; the distillation residue yields considerable sulfonation residue" [6] - its likely we could add it as a type of Bitumen, maybe under production. Garfie489 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Sexual activity
- Sexual activity → Human sexual activity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There's quite a large literature relating to non-human sexual activity, to such an extent that I don't think that Human sexual activity is going to be the primary topic here. I'm unsure if this would be better served as a dab page or with some other resolution, but I don't think the current status makes sense in light of WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Noting history here: This had the current target starting uh... further back than diffs go, actuallyGraham?... until 2011, when Florian Blaschke retargeted to Sexuality. It was dabified by Jarble in 2013 and was tagged with {{dabconcept}} by BD2412 when it looked like this. Flyer 22 Frozen then restored the redirect with summaries
Restored redirect to Sexuality, per Florian Blaschke, Jarble and BD2412 respectively; this disambiguation page is a mess. And if turned into an article, it would duplicate what is already well-covered in other articles.
andIf turned into an article, it also would likely start off as human-centric, since human sexual activity is primary, or it would very likely become human-centric. But like I stated, this topic is well-covered in other articles.
Sexuality was shortly thereafter moved to Human sexuality as a result of Talk:Sexuality (disambiguation) § Requested move (move not reversed 2017). Flyer than reverted to the original target of Sexuality a month later with a summary of just "More accurate." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)- @Tamzin: I've imported the earliest available edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Not something I do ordinarily for a redirect, but since you asked and it's at RFD, why not? Graham87 14:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the original target of the redirect, "Sexual behaviors", was moved by cut-and-paste to "human sexual behaviors" by Larry Sanger, whose edit summary on the redirect is interesting. The double redirect on the "Sexual activity" page wasn't fixed though until October 2002, which was common then. Graham87 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: I've imported the earliest available edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Not something I do ordinarily for a redirect, but since you asked and it's at RFD, why not? Graham87 14:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Move Human sexual activity to Sexual activity. This is a human-centric encyclopedia. Animals experience happiness, but our human-centric article is titled Happiness, not Human happiness or Happiness in humans. There are millions more examples like this. BD2412 T 15:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I don't think article titles need to be "human-centric." The articles about the human brain, human digestive system and human anatomy are specifically about humans, so they include human in the title to avoid confusion. Jarble (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on Animal sexual activity at all (we do have Animal sexual behaviour), so perhaps humans are more inclined to assume that sexual activity is more of a human function, and sexual behavior is more of an animal function. BD2412 T 16:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm increasingly thinking this should be a dab between Animal sexual behaviour and human sexual activity, though I'm not wedded to the idea. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on Animal sexual activity at all (we do have Animal sexual behaviour), so perhaps humans are more inclined to assume that sexual activity is more of a human function, and sexual behavior is more of an animal function. BD2412 T 16:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- The main thing that comes to mind here is to retarget to Sex (disambiguation), whose first section (§ Biology and behaviour) disambiguates these two terms and others like Sexual intercourse. As an aside, I've been thinking for a while now that that DAB page should be moved to the base title, and the current article at Sex moved to something like Sex (trait). The vast majority of uses of the word "sex" in common parlance are in reference to some sort of sexual activity, to the extent that the trait called sex is often disambiguated as "biological sex" (a misnomer but oh well). Academic sources meanwhile are decidedly equivocal in their usage of the word. But again, that would need an RM. (Oh also, oppose any move of Human sexual activity to Sexual activity without an RM, since such a proposal failed at RM in 2017. If there's a desire for such a move here, this should be closed as "Refer to RM" rather than "Move".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Sex (disambiguation) per Tamzin. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as is, the hatnote is sufficient. —Kusma (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Finalnd
I think this is an implausible redirect but I'm not sure if it's implausible enough for R3, so I'm starting an RfD discussion. Anyone think this should just be R from misspelling instead? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Plausible misspellings (i.e. spelling mistakes) make good redirects. Typos (typing mistakes) do not make good redirects. Recently created, so safe to delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per Mdewman6, but keeping it as R from misspelling is not out completely out of the question. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
East Buttress
- East Buttress → Denali (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I proposed this for deletion on the basis that "East buttress" is a generic term with several mentions in Enwiki and this page encumbers Search. "West Buttress" does not exist. It was de-PRODed by @Necrothesp: and redirected to the current target, but I wanted to check by discussion that this is appropriate. Search for "East Buttress" (with quotes) shows 43 other mentions of varying capitalization styles, most of which do not refer to Denali. I therefore still maintain that we're better off deleting this page because it is inhibiting effective Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambig, a quick search shows that there are multiple mountains with a feature known as the east buttress, but not too many that disambiguation is impossible. One should also be created for "West Buttress" as well, or possibly a list article could be created dealing with all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as per User:Thryduulf. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Eray Erdoğan
- Eray Erdoğan → Eray Aydoğan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Incorrect surname, corrected by a page move. The sources back the current title, and there doesn't seem to be any basis for the error as a common nickname or misnomer. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Gingermead (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I've got no idea where this would have come from as even looking at the sources used when this was created, they seem to use Erdoğan or Erdogan. However, it was at the incorrect title for a year so unless there's an issue (ie someone potentially notable with this name) then I think it should be kept per WP:RFD#K4. Also note there are sources which use this name, though this might be due to wikipedia having used it for a year (eg [7]). A7V2 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per A7V2. This is an incorrect name, but one that seems to be used for some people which is why {{R from incorrect name}} exists. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me go to the house of the Father.
- Let me go to the house of the Father. → Death and state funeral of Pope John Paul II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Those are apparently John Paul II's last words (see also ABC News report). It is also the title of a book about John Paul II.
The expression is never mentioned in the article, and there is a "." at the end; therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- We should probably include his last words somewhere on Wikipedia if they are widely reported. Deletion seems premature. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete, the phrase is mentioned in List of last words (21st century)#2001–2009 but this isn't really going to help someone searching for information about this, especially as the target is in the middle of a large section. There is no mention of this at Wikiquote so there is no possibility of a soft redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment : there is a "John Paul II spoke his final words in Polish, "Pozwólcie mi odejść do domu Ojca" ("Allow me to depart to the house of the Father")" at Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
KN (car)
Kia is not KN Qwv (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This and the above redirect were requested at WP:AFC/R, and created by me.
- The reason I accepted it is because of this provided source: [8]. I don't see any reason for these to be deleted or retargeted. If one was going to be considered though, it should be this one: KИ, which also redirects to Kia and doesn't seem like a popular search term. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've bundled both nominations which shared the same rationale and target article. CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget KN (car) to K&N Engineering; Ambivalent on KN Car: K&N Engineering makes a fair amount of car related products as well the company is involved a bit in American motorsports previously having sponsored the now ARCA Series East and ARCA Series West. I would personally expect KN (car) to go to K&N as that's more intuitive to me than a misspelling of Kia as a lack of ampersand. TartarTorte 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 03:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep both. According to the dab page at KN, KN seems like a search term for Kia based on the appearance of one of their logos. Looking at it myself, the I and A form a backwards N. Google hits seems to support this being a common search term for Kia. I think the proposed retarget to K&N may be a bit of a stretch, though a google search for just KN seems to default to K&N. I'll add K&N to the KN dab page. As for KN Car, I am wondering if KN car would be more appropriate, but I guess it's fine (not sure it's worth suppress-moving the redirect). Mdewman6 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
StudentBusinesses.com
- StudentBusinesses.com → Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect was WP:PROD'd by Rublamb with the nom statement "not mentioned on redirect page; also no longer exists". I procedurally am nominating it here. TartarTorte 14:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}} that was subject to a WP:BLAR after being an article during 2009–2015. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Did the content get merged anywhere, or is it just... history? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 02:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Foundation did purchase StudentBusinsses.com [9] and WP:CHEAP. If it's due, add a mention of the purchase to the target (which feels like it should be expanded) but otherwise it's a slightly helpful hint if we're not keeping the previous article. Skynxnex (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore article - article existed for many years before being BLARed. Alternatively, if mention can be added to the current target then that's fine also. Status quo is unacceptable as someone searching this will be left confused without even a mention. A7V2 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep redirect or restore article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore article without prejudice to AfD or merger if someone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Travis May#Career where it is described. The website doesn't appear to exist anymore, so highly unlikely an article would be kept if sent to Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Template:Stay focused
- Template:Stay focused → User:RWV/Stay focused (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
User subpage created in Template space by mistake, or never documented and adopted as a general-use template. I have moved it to the creator's user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Template:Unfocused, as "stay focused" is a plausible alternative phrasing of "unfocused". Duckmather (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Revert move without leaving a redirect, and send to WP:TFD. The page was in the "Template:" namespace since 2006 ... about 17 years ... prior to the move. (Either way, in the template's current form, it seems somewhat similar in function to {{Talk header}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
January 12
Self-Defense Forces
- Self-Defense Forces → Military (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Self-Defense Force → Japan Self-Defense Forces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Self-Defence Force → Military (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Although [they have] the same title (excepting the plural), [these redirect to different articles]. In my opinion, both should redirect to Japan Self-Defense Forces, as "Self-Defense Force" is the literal translation of the name of that organization. Alternatives are redirecting to the DAB page Self-defense force, or redirecting to Military, the current target of [the plural title], but whichever way we go both redirects should point to the same place. Toadspike (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note nominations merged. @Toadspike: I've made some minor edits to your words to combine the two almost identical statements so they make sense for the merged nomination. Please feel free to adjust or revert. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Self-defense force, as Japan Self-Defense Forces is too specific and Military is too general. Duckmather (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Self-defense force as per User:Duckmather. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note I've added Self-Defence Force (the only British English variety that exists) to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget all to Self-defense force per Duckmather. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget all of the redirects to Self-defense force per Duckmather. 141Pr 16:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Co-dominance (reptiles)
- Co-dominance (reptiles) → Dominance (genetics)#Incomplete dominance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Codominance (reptiles) → Dominance (genetics)#Incomplete dominance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Very specific subtopic ("co-dominance in reptiles") when reptiles aren't mentioned in the co-dominance section at all. Rusalkii (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Codominance (reptiles) as well, not sure how to properly format a double listing. Rusalkii (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To include Codominance (reptiles).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- Comment: Sorry for the confusion! I created these redirects because I wanted to clarify how in herpetology, what we call co-dominance refers to incomplete dominance in other fields of biology PetraTheFloof (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both unless there is a mention at the target. No incoming links where the context could have been clarified. A redirect called Co-dominance targeting a page section not called Co-dominance despite the page having a section on Co-dominance is overall confusing. Jay 💬 02:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Houston Havoc
- Houston Havoc → American Basketball Association (2000–present) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Houston Takers → American Basketball Association (2000–present) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect topic isn't mentioned in target article. Redirect should be deleted. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I should add that this team has next to no mention on the web. All the top search matches for "Houston Havoc" are for other (not ABA) teams with the same name. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be another roughly 100 similar redirects from teams to American Basketball Association (2000–present) with no/little mention (see [10]). In this case it appears the team name was changed to Houston Undertakers then Houston Takers then Houston Red Storm, with the last two both having been articles which were BLARed to American Basketball Association (2000–present) by Primefac. For this particular redirect I think deletion is acceptable but perhaps better would be to restore one of the articles and retarget all of these former Houston teams to it (and send to AFD if necessary). Certainly having 100 redirects without mention is far from ideal as well. A7V2 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- I have bundled Houston Takers for the suggested restore-AFD long-term solution. If the nom disapproves of this bundling, please strike it off. Jay 💬 06:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on deleting vs. restoring, but my concern is that there might be an indefinite wait for restoring. The problem with the status quo is that a user is much more likely to be searching for the UBA Houston Havok or the AUDL Houston Havok than the defunct ABA Houston Havok, and they would be better served by no link than by the current ABA redirect. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @A7V2: Do you think this pre-BLAR version can be restored per your plan? Jay 💬 02:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jay: I'm not sure I had a plan... it's not a good article but it does at least have one reference so is certainly restorable I think. Given what Danbloch has said, for the originally nominated Houston Havoc it perhaps should be deleted due to ambiguity also. But as I said, 100 bad redirects, many of which the result of BLARs, aren't going to be solved by one action here, and I don't have a strong view on this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @A7V2: Do you think this pre-BLAR version can be restored per your plan? Jay 💬 02:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on deleting vs. restoring, but my concern is that there might be an indefinite wait for restoring. The problem with the status quo is that a user is much more likely to be searching for the UBA Houston Havok or the AUDL Houston Havok than the defunct ABA Houston Havok, and they would be better served by no link than by the current ABA redirect. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have bundled Houston Takers for the suggested restore-AFD long-term solution. If the nom disapproves of this bundling, please strike it off. Jay 💬 06:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what should be done with these redirects…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The present situation is clearly not suitable, and individually I would definitely say to revert the BLAR and send to AfD if desired. However given the existence of many redirects that are both without mention and also quite ambiguous that's clearly (per A7V2) not going to solve things. I think what needs to happen is for there to be a systematic review at a WikiProject level to come up with a consensus about the desired end state and a plan of how to get there - I don't know anywhere near enough about the topic area to have a useful opinion about what is desirable content wise. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
By-wire
- By-wire → Drive by wire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- By-wire car → Drive by wire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- X-by-wire → Drive by wire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- By wire → Drive by wire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- X by wire → Drive by wire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Deletion due to strongly general nature of those redirects, which could lead to confusion with fly-by-wire, and lack of use: in the article; only being used in the lead, in terms of page views and in terms of links except for X-by-wire - which has 2 links. - nathanielcwm (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think By-wire and X-by-wire are plausible enough search terms but I think they would be better disambiguated. I'm not sure about By-wire car as it clearly not referring to flying but it doesn't seem to be a term that's actually used. A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've added the unhyphenated By wire and X by wire since these should target the same place (or be deleted, etc) as the hyphenated versions. A7V2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep for By-wire car. It's a strange way to phrase it but I think it could still be helpful. DABify By-wire to include Drive by wire, Fly-by-wire, and any other pertinent pages, and retarget the others to it. --Sable232 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. These are commonly used terms in the automotive industry. Some of the terms might be ambiguous, in this case we should expand the (already existing) hatnote at Drive by wire with additional targets, or retarget the corresponding redirect to a disambiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambig X-by-wire and by-wire (and their unhyphenated counterparts), keep by-wire car. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
朱子家禮
This redirect looks like it is referring to Zhu Xi's Jia li (Chinese: 家禮), which is not mentioned in the article except for in the translations section of the further reading. Since the work is not mentioned in the article, the redirect should be deleted. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. This is mentioned (transliterated as Zhuzi jiali) several times in Shenyi and once in Society in the Joseon dynasty. The latter would definitely not make a good target for the redirect, but the former is not so clear cut as the mentions are more than in passing and there is some detail but it's not the topic or a subtopic of the article and on-balance I don't think it's helpful but I could be persuaded otherwise. It does make me wonder though if this is a subject we should have an article on? Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Bret Ryan (Character)
- Bret Ryan (Character) → Percy Jackson & the Olympians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect should be deleted, there is not a character named Bret Ryan in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians book series. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore the extensive pre-BLAR version [11] and send to AfD. It was almost entirely unsourced, but it's not speediable and so deserves a hearing at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore and send to afd per Thryduulf, but move after restoration to Bret Ryan, as there is no need for parenthetical disambiguation (and the current qualifier is improperly capitalized). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
MSTS Editors & Tools
- MSTS Editors & Tools → Microsoft Train Simulator (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Route Editor → Microsoft Train Simulator (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
MSTS Editors & Tools is probably unambiguous, but not mentioned in the target and probably not a plausible search term. Route Editor is more likely to be ambiguous and also not mentioned in the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment – This redirect has history of being an article dedicated to the "Editors & Tools" feature in Microsoft Train Simulator, before being BLAR'd to the main article ~10 days later. Route Editor has a very similar history – except it lasted roughly an hour before the BLAR – so I would propose adding it to the same RfD. Since neither spent a significant amount of time being a separate article and these aren't addressed in the main article due to a lack of notability, I support deletion. Randi Moth (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Randi Moth, I've added that and modified the nomination statement slightly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
DeLong Pier
- DeLong Pier → Cam Ranh Bay#Army use of Cam Ranh Bay (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A DeLong pier is a type of structure used at Cam Ranh Bay, but also at other places, which makes the current target a confusing one. I'd suggest this subject is unlikely to be notable in its own right (though there was a stub at this location from 2014 to 2016), and isn't one that anyone's very likely to be searching for, so we can probably safely delete this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and restore the stub for expansion. The stub was redirected without discussion long ago but searching in a few Wikipedia Library sources, like jstor, finds likely sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG (and there are more than this if you search):
- The Story of the DeLong Piers: The Task Was Unprecedented, Vol. 28, No. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 1972), pp. 24-29 (6 pages) and The Story of the DeLong Piers: The Task Was Unprecedented, Defense Transportation Journal Vol. 28, No. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1972), pp. 40-49 (10 pages)
- Dredging Using DeLong Piers, The Military Engineer Vol. 67, No. 438 (July-August 1975), p. 211 (1 page)
- And newspapers.com finds many moderate mentions and a few fairly signifciant ones:
- 'Raft' Pier May Be Answer to H-Bomb, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, 15 Mar 1956, Thu, Page 7
- Fort Belvoir's Floating, Evening Star, Washington, DC, 07 Feb 1954, Sun, Page 147
- And more sources exist. Skynxnex (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore per Skynxex. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restore per the above, but move to DeLong pier, as the subject does not seem to be a proper noun (i.e., a type of pier, not a specific pier). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Arny of Yugoslavia
- Arny of Yugoslavia → Yugoslav People's Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Typo fixed in 2009, speedy delete declined in 2012, no incoming links, not a common redirect pattern, utterly pointless? Joy (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the reason Rossami declined the speedy deletion -
It is also part of the documentation of a very complicated series of pagemoves and content mergers.
which indicates this is required for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)- I don't actually see what series of page moves is there, so if it's documentation, it's really bad at it. What attribution concern do we have specifically here? It's a dead redirect. @Thryduulf: --Joy (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The history of this redirect shows that content was moved from this title in 2009 to Army of Yugoslavia but there is a lot more to the history that which I don't have time to fully trace right now, especially since you seem to have deleted some of it when moving the disambiguation page earlier today. The history of page moves is part of the attribution history of the article, whether it is a "dead redirect" (whatever that is meant to mean) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- If there's a copyright issue with content that is now displayed in a separate article, I don't see how it is possible for it to exist in the 50-odd bytes of this redirect's historical entries. Not sure how the disambiguation page factors into it, either, because it's unrelated content. I'm afraid you'll have to help me out to understand what part of attribution history is actually the problem here. The worst I can imagine is that there's entries somewhere in the history of army articles that says "Moved Foo to Arny of Yugoslavia" and then the next entry later on says "Moved Arny of Yugoslavia to Army of Yugoslavia" and so on, but if we delete this Arny redirect history there's nothing in there that is relevant to article content, something that is copyrightable, something that needs to be retained to preserve attribution. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I happened to find that entry at [12], and then this redirect's history, and then [13]. While it seems fun to be able to spelunk through history and connect the dots like that, I'm not sure what the utility of not deleting this would be, because the only content of these edits is the titles change and a handful of words like "Yugoslav Army (FRY)" or "Army of Yugoslavia" are not supposed to be copyrightable at all. --Joy (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The history of this redirect shows that content was moved from this title in 2009 to Army of Yugoslavia but there is a lot more to the history that which I don't have time to fully trace right now, especially since you seem to have deleted some of it when moving the disambiguation page earlier today. The history of page moves is part of the attribution history of the article, whether it is a "dead redirect" (whatever that is meant to mean) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't actually see what series of page moves is there, so if it's documentation, it's really bad at it. What attribution concern do we have specifically here? It's a dead redirect. @Thryduulf: --Joy (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, what are we supposed to preserve attribution for here? A page move to fix a typo? WP:CWW specifies that attribution needs to be preserved for "creating and altering the content of a page". Where does it say redirects from page moves need to be preserved for attribution? -Vipz (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Moving a page (i.e. changing it's title) is a significant change to the content of that page. See also {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: please cite a guideline that says so because I disagree. The only thing that this template says is "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." There were no internal links to this redirect until it was nominated for deletion and linked in notifications about it. 0 external backlinks exist to this redirect, likely because it was very quickly fixed. It has no edit history apart from 1 page move, 1 double-redirect bot-fix, 1 nomination for speedy deletion, 1 revert of the previous, and 1 for this RfD. It is an implausible typo. What if a vandal created a bunch of such page moves (except with, say, vulgar titles), would we keep these too on basis of documenting a series of page moves? -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can't remember off the top of my head where this is documented (I thought the template mentioned attribution, obviously I was wrong. I'll try and remember to look tomorrow when I'm more awake) but it has been the consensus at RfD for at least the decade or so I've been a regular here. The consensus regarding vandalism is that we do not need to keep the attribution of edits that were both not made in good faith and reverted, and to my knowledge that has never been objected to by legal. Not directly relevant to your comment but worth noting that we also don't need to keep attribution for pages that have been deleted, which is why we don't need to worry about whether redirects deleted per G8 were made by page moves or not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: please cite a guideline that says so because I disagree. The only thing that this template says is "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." There were no internal links to this redirect until it was nominated for deletion and linked in notifications about it. 0 external backlinks exist to this redirect, likely because it was very quickly fixed. It has no edit history apart from 1 page move, 1 double-redirect bot-fix, 1 nomination for speedy deletion, 1 revert of the previous, and 1 for this RfD. It is an implausible typo. What if a vandal created a bunch of such page moves (except with, say, vulgar titles), would we keep these too on basis of documenting a series of page moves? -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Moving a page (i.e. changing it's title) is a significant change to the content of that page. See also {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Arab Armenians
Paula Räikkönen
- Paula Räikkönen → Kimi Räikkönen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target, internet search results don't turn up anything helpful. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep One of the first results was [14] this FB page. No idea if "Kimi7Iceman" actually belongs to Kimi kimself or a fangroup (especially hard to tell, since parental control devices block FB :P) Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: While Paula seems to have a connection without a citation available this seems to be a sort of WP:BLP violation. Kimi7Iceman appears to be a fan account; however it sources it to a book by Kimi. I assumed the referenced book is "The Unknown Kimi Raikkonen"; however, I do not have access to this book. If someone can get access to this book and confirm that Kimi7Iceman's assertion about the connection between Paula Räikkönen and Kimi than this should be kept; however, as it stands known deletion on BLP grounds. TartarTorte 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not necessarily convinced by the above mentioned BLP concerns but whoever this Paula is, they are not mentioned at the target leaving a would-be searcher confused as to the connection, if any. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unless mention is added. I've found a reliable source (in Finnish) the verifies that Paula Räikkönen is Kimi Räikkönen's mother [15] (Google translates the headline as "Kimi Räikkönen's mother Paula tells about the family's special life [...]"). I'm certain therefore that this is not a BLP problem. Searching the same source for "Paula Räikkönen" in quotes [16] provides multiple other articles so that there is very likely enough to write content in the article about Kimi's family, especially as other articles are referenced in unreliable English sources. However, unless a mention is added the redirect is unhelpful per A7V2. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Daily life in ancient india
- Daily life in ancient india → History of India (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unclear what "daily life" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: There are two similar redirects, Daily life in the Aztec Empire to Aztec society and Daily Life in the Mongol Empire to Society of the Mongol Empire. If there is a problem with the daily life term, then both of these redirects have the same problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The two examples you brought up are as relevant as possible to the search term and would probably help fill a reader in on whatever aspect of daily life for which they're looking, while the target of the redirect being discussed covers the entire history of a region. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Guess I should have included the other half of my comment rather than deleting it. I was going to suggest retargeting, but I kinda am unsure what I was going to suggest. (Maybe it was Culture of India, though most of that looks to not be ancient.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The two examples you brought up are as relevant as possible to the search term and would probably help fill a reader in on whatever aspect of daily life for which they're looking, while the target of the redirect being discussed covers the entire history of a region. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
History of India and Pakistan
- History of India and Pakistan → History of India (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:XY: History of Pakistan is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to India–Pakistan relations, and add a hatnote to the current target if necessary. It cannot be assumed that readers know about the history of India an Pakistan as a group topic before reading about it, both due to the WP:XY titling issue amongst existing article title, though the history of India and Pakistan is rather connected as shown in the current target (thus the hatnote). Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Steel1943:
keepthe target History of India here is somewhat confusingly the history of the Indian subcontinent (which conventionally includes Pakistan). See also this RfD. J947 † edits 04:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)- I saw that as well, but I'd think that's all the more reason this should be deleted: This could still equally point to its current target, subtopics of "History of India", or History of Pakistan. Maybe this title should become a broad concept if not deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The current target covers only a slightly larger area than India and Pakistan – so much so that it was a former title of the article. To me it seems the best target as it stands, and I am of the opinion that a redirect is generally preferable to search results in such an instance, especially when the title under discussion is so helpfulkeyword-devoid. J947 † edits 07:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per below, India–Pakistan relations seems to be the closest title match that could act as somewhat of a broad concept. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The current target covers only a slightly larger area than India and Pakistan – so much so that it was a former title of the article. To me it seems the best target as it stands, and I am of the opinion that a redirect is generally preferable to search results in such an instance, especially when the title under discussion is so helpfulkeyword-devoid. J947 † edits 07:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I saw that as well, but I'd think that's all the more reason this should be deleted: This could still equally point to its current target, subtopics of "History of India", or History of Pakistan. Maybe this title should become a broad concept if not deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Retarget to India–Pakistan relations as this includes links to all the plausible things that someone searching this could be looking for as well as giving an overview of the history of the relationship between the modern countries (wars etc, which I think is most likely what someone searching this is actually looking for) including how they were formed. Second choice is keep per J947. A7V2 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's a good point – from further look there does seem to be a lot of overlap in this area and therefore a tougher choice to be made: for example overlap between the current target and e.g. History of Pakistan, and then the 1947–present articles seem somewhat left out here. I don't think I agree with your proposed retarget though; it seems too narrow. I guess my problem is that only right at the bottom are the other plausible targets linked. Could going even broader, to South Asia#History or Outline of South Asian history be a better option? It's a bit of a shame that everything is split by 1947 nationhood (nice final 3 digits of that year btw) whereas I'd think the reader would want to look either side of that date. At the moment, I'm not sure what should be done aside from that deletion is a bad option here. J947 † edits 23:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget or keep per A7V2 and/or J947. Deletion is definitely the wrong outcome here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete History of India and Bangladesh doesn't exist, neither does History of India and Nepal, nor History of Israel and Palestine, History of Russia and Ukraine, History of India and China etc. No reason this should be an exception. Thus delete, no retargeting. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Washington D.C. press corps
- Washington D.C. press corps → White House Correspondents' Association (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
After a recent Rfd for this redirect ended in no consensus without any discussion after two relists, I am renominating with a more specific nomination. The term receives some sporadic use in enwiki, but nowhere is it described. The closest target would seem to be White House press corps, but I think it is somewhere between misleading to incorrect to conflate the two, as there are members of the press in D.C. who do not cover the White House. Therefore I think the best course of action here is deletion, absent the identification of a better course of action. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thien Hau Temple (Ho Chi Minh City)
- Thien Hau Temple (Ho Chi Minh City) → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Thien Hau Temple, Ho Chi Minh City → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Thiên Hậu Temple, Ho Chi Minh City → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete or retarget to a more appropriate article. These redirects are extremely ambiguous and confusing, as there are at least 6 Thien Hau temples (Mazu temples) in Ho Chi Minh City, and they are also well known. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all unless the other temples are proven to be mentioned in Wikipedia in a way where any of these redirects could reasonably target
themthe article(s) where the other temple(s) are mentioned. Otherwise, these redirects are currently de facto unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC) - On List of Mazu temples#Vietnam, only two are listed as being in Ho Chi Minh, the other being Quan Am Temple (Cholon) which as the (unnecessary, will move shortly) disambuguator suggests is also in Cholon anyway. So keep per Steel1943. If there are others which can at least be mentioned in that list then it would be a potential target, however. A7V2 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam. Thiên Hậu (天后) is an alternative name for Mazu, so we should retarget to the list of Mazu temples, as there will most likely be more than one Mazu temple called that in Ho Chi Minh. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The list at that section apparently mentions the current target of these redirects in the list, but no other temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are mentioned in that list. Traditionally, we don't update redirects to target a page where there is hope that it will prove the redirect ambiguous in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL), but rather should target what currently exists on Wikipedia. Unless more temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are added to that section, the status quo is the current best for our readers, considering the redirects target the article about the temple mentioned in that list. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: The name "Thien Hau Temple" itself is just a translation, Thien Hau = Mazu, any Mazu temple can be referred as "Thien Hau Temple". That Thien Hau Temple being targeted, it is in fact a Chinese guild hall. Its official name is 穗城會館/Tuệ Thành Hội Quán/Tue Thanh Guild Hall, and because it worships Mazu (Thien Hau), people call it Thien Hau Temple, not because the temple is named "Thien Hau". You will never find any sign that writes "Thien Hau Temple" there, neither in Vietnamese nor Chinese, but only its official name (穗城會館). Since you have been asking for other Thien Hau Temple, I just added to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam, looks good enough now? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like I was ignored. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: The name "Thien Hau Temple" itself is just a translation, Thien Hau = Mazu, any Mazu temple can be referred as "Thien Hau Temple". That Thien Hau Temple being targeted, it is in fact a Chinese guild hall. Its official name is 穗城會館/Tuệ Thành Hội Quán/Tue Thanh Guild Hall, and because it worships Mazu (Thien Hau), people call it Thien Hau Temple, not because the temple is named "Thien Hau". You will never find any sign that writes "Thien Hau Temple" there, neither in Vietnamese nor Chinese, but only its official name (穗城會館). Since you have been asking for other Thien Hau Temple, I just added to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam, looks good enough now? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- The list at that section apparently mentions the current target of these redirects in the list, but no other temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are mentioned in that list. Traditionally, we don't update redirects to target a page where there is hope that it will prove the redirect ambiguous in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL), but rather should target what currently exists on Wikipedia. Unless more temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are added to that section, the status quo is the current best for our readers, considering the redirects target the article about the temple mentioned in that list. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Misc Christianity redirects
- Impact Of Christianity On Civilization → Christianity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Christianty Impact On Civilization → Christianity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Militant Christianity → Christianity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete or retarget, but having these point directly to Christianity is not helpful. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- May I suggest a redirect to Role of Christianity in civilization instead? Same info. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget the two "impact on civilization" redirects to Role of Christianity in civilization as pretty much a synonym. No opinion yet on Militant Christianity except to say I agree with nom that current target isn't suitable. A7V2 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Christianty Impact On Civilization due to it being both in title case and having a typo (
Christianity
-> Christianty); but if that's not deleted, it should target Role of Christianity in civilization per Jenhawk777 and A7V2. Retarget Impact Of Christianity On Civilization to Role of Christianity in civilization, also per Jenhawk777 and A7V2. (That redirect used to be an article, which might be worth merging.) Weak retarget Militant Christianity to Christian fundamentalism as an {{R from related topic}}. (And as an aside, all of these if kept should be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}} due to the title case.) Duckmather (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC) - Retarget Impact Of Christianity On Civilization to Role of Christianity in civilization per above and Militant Christianity to Christian fundamentalism per Duckmather, and weak retarget Christianty Impact On Civilization to the former target to correspond with Christianty in terms of the best target. These proposed targets will help redirect readers to a specific topic as opposed to Christianity in general, so it's not really in our best interest to be WP:ASTONISHing people searching for their intended targets. Regards, SONIC678 18:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Militant Christianity in terms of related concepts to either the viable but also weak retarget Christianity and violence; or the strongest retarget Crusader movement. Fundamentalism is historically isolationist, not militant, except for a few outliers, making this a very weak retarget option, which is not much better than what it currently is - imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
January 11
List of Jedi survivors of Order 66
- List of Jedi survivors of Order 66 → Clone Wars (Star Wars)#Jedi survivors (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of Jedi Survivors of Order 66 → Jedi#Survivors (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no such list. It would run afoul of our current policies on fancruft. Neither targeted section still exists. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of List of Jedi survivors of Order 66?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Revert. The content originally here was boldly merged to Great Jedi Purge in 2009, part that article was in turn boldly merged to Clone Wars (Star Wars) by TenTonParasol in 2016, however despite the edit summaries suggesting a full merge only the further reading section seems to have been copied (and that is still present). I recommend reverting to the article content and having a discussion about what, if anything, should be merged and if so what the best place to merge it to should be as I can find no evidence this has happened at any point. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Ah, 2016, when I did things less carefully. As far as I can tell, the content is housed between Jedi, Clone Wars (Star Wars) at a more high level summary level, and various The Clone Wars 2008 articles because, well, as the nominator remarks, all this was fancruft and related fannish bloat. I have no opinions either way as to whether a formal discussion should take place. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Both Another pair of old Star Wars redirects with a complex history, which appears to partly have been due to one of the old Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) policies. The second redirect should be deleted at a minimum due to the capitalization, but I otherwise agree with Thryduulf's opinion on reverting. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Ego and Non-Ego
- Ego and Non-Ego → Id, ego and super-ego (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There's no mention on "non-ego" in the target article, leaving readers potentially scratching their heads if they search this term. In addition, Non-ego and Non ego do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, current target makes no sense. The expression ego and non-ego appears to be used in a number of contexts:
- Fichte, e.g., this explanation or here, here, or here; although Johann Gottlieb Fichte says nothing about it
- phemenology or philosophy, e.g., here; although Phenomenology (philosophy) and philosophy don't mention it
- Jungian psychology, e.g. here, although 'Jungian psychology' ⟶ Analytical psychology doesn't mention it
- and other contexts, but this is not particularly associated with Freud's oft-quoted tripartite expression. I'd recommend either a redirect to Fichte (and add some content there), or delete it. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Theory of education
- Theory of education → Learning theory (education) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The target article does not make it clear enough why this redirect targets the target article. In addition, the redirect Education theory exists (which is a redirect to Education sciences) and could possibly be confused with the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think either retarget to Education sciences in line with Education theory, or instead target Outline of education#Educational theory and practice which gives a large number of articles that someone searching this could be looking for. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several targets have been proposed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Education sciences It seems plausible that "education theory" and "theory of education" could be used interchangeably. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Paideutics
- Paideutics → Pedagogy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article, leading the connection between the redirect and the article unclear. The redirect is not mentioned in any article on Wikipedia; however, Wiktionary:paideutics exists ... which hints that this term may have a connection to Propaedeutics. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - This does seem to be a synonym for pedagogy, see for example [17] (as well as wikitionary). I suppose mention could be added to the lede or the etymology section of current target. A7V2 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Education studies
- Education studies → Pedagogy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Education Studies → Pedagogy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Seems these redirects could also refer to Philosophy of education with no clear answer to which one is a better target. (Also, when Education studies was created in 2005, it targeted Education.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep WP defines pedagogy as
the study of how knowledge and skills are imparted in an educational context, and it considers the interactions that take place during learning
. Based on this definition, the current target seems the most appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
God Talk
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection unclear. In addition, as a subject, it could refer to alternative subjects besides this one in reference to God. However, with all that being said, there is a proper subject which has this title that is currently on Wikipedia: The subject is a song listed at The Gold Album: 18th Dynasty, so probably retarget to The Gold Album: 18th Dynasty and tag as {{R from song}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete to facilitate unencumbered Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Leftovers of Views on Shia Islam
- Academic Bias against The Shia → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Misconceptions about the Shi'a → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Misconceptions about The Shia → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Misconceptions about the Shi'a → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Misconceptions about the Shia → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Views on Shi'a Islam → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Shi'a and Islam → Shia Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a series of redirects that formerly pointed to "Views on Shia Islam", a now-deleted article, which have been retargeted to the general article on Shia Islam. It doesn't seem like the general article covers any of these topics, so I would propose deleting most of these redirects.
However, I am not certain on the last two redirects. I didn't find a suitable page that may fall under Views on Shi'a Islam, though one may exist. In regards to Shi'a and Islam, retargeting to Shia–Sunni relations may make sense, however this is only about the interactions between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni and Shia are definitely the largest branches by a significant margin, but one searching for "Shi'a and Islam" might be searching for more general relations between Shi'a Islam and other branches, such as with Ibadi or more historical branches. Randi Moth (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hirsutissima
- Hirsutissima → Millettia nitida (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Species epithets never stand alone; they are accompanied by the name of the genus (or at least an abbreviation of the genus). As such, this is not a likely search term. Wikipedia has articles on 5 species with this epithet, and there are additional red-links mentioned in genus articles. There are well over 100 plants with this epithet, not to mention various animals. A disambiguation page is not a good solution; in the unlikely event that somebody were to search for this term, there is no guarantee that they are looking for a species that has an existing page on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Opcode database
- Opcode database → Metasploit#Opcode Database (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Regarding Opcode database, the section in question is no longer visible. User:Notajoy doesn’t find this redirection to any use. See Special:Diff/1132967646. Tropicalkitty (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Tory party
- Tory party → Tories (British political party) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure this is what most people who are going to search "Tory party" would be looking for here. More likely to refer to the Conservative Party (UK), but wary about redirecting there as other conservative political parties are known by this outside the UK. Perhaps Tory Party (disambiguation)? Gingermead (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Conservative Party (UK), of course, moving the current hatnote. There is Tory Party (disambiguation) but frankly I'm pretty dubious how often many of the list there are ever actually called "Tories" - the Coalition Avenir Québec for example. "Tory" is handily short for headline writers, and seems still to be used for some Canadian parties, but the Australian Liberals are "Libs". Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have heard the Conservative Party of Canada called Tories quite often So at the very least one of the entires there is valid.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep, with second preference to retarget to Conservative Party (UK). I think it is possibly recentism to say that the existing party is the primary topic for this. Certainly I don't think it's necessary to redirect to the DAB page, the hatnote (either as is or swapped over if target is changed) is doing its job, and I think some of the parties listed on the DAB page are quite dubious as to whether they are ever referred to as Tories. A7V2 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tory Party (disambiguation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This has the same target as Tory Party, and I don't see a good reason to invoke WP:DIFFCAPS here. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tory Party should redirect to Tory Party (disambiguation) too, given there are two major parties known by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget this, and Tory Party, to Tory Party (disambiguation). 141Pr 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Death of Sidney Poitier
Bacak Obama
- Bacak Obama → Barack Obama (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is very much an implausible redirect. I don't see anyone mistyping Obama's name this badly. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: While C is next to R on the Dvorak keyboard, this also, even if Barak Obama, is still a misspelling of the name so the probability that someone using a Dvorak keyboard hits the wrong key and misspells this name is quite low. I guess it is in theory possible, but so are many other things. TartarTorte 02:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, an implausible redirect. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete too many errors to be useful --Lenticel (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible cedirect. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Very implausible, there is a very low probability that someone would misspell "Barack" very badly. 141Pr 17:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably could qualify for WP:G10 since "Bacak" could be a plausible representation of the sound a chicken makes. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:G10 specifies that redirects are not eligible for it, and there's precedent for defamatory terms being used as titles of redirects. However, the term must be verifiable and there should be a suitable target (as per WP:RCOM), which isn't fulfilled by this redirect, so I still support deletion. Randi Moth (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Immediate another comment: My mistake, I've misread WP:G10, as it says that "Redirects from plausible search terms" are ineligible rather than just redirects. This isn't a plausible search term, so it is eligible for WP:G10. However, I doubt that it's intended to attack Obama, and it being a typo seems far more plausible. Still, delete as an implausible search term. Randi Moth (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Andean man
- Andean man → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Maybe retarget to Culture of South America (the most suitable potential target I could find after some digging) or something similar, but probably delete as unclear and unhelpful. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: I was expecting this to have some article history, but having none and being an odd term with little usage, deletion seems preferable here. TartarTorte 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Andean Peoples redirects to Inca Empire; Andean culture is a dab page (tagged as being in need of a broad concept article) listing six different indigenous groups; Andean civilizations is an article about the pre-Inca cultures and societies. I think any of these would make a better target than the present one (I don't have a preference between that and Culture of South America). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The are also some articles about gender roles in various cultures, which would probably be the best choice except we still are lacking one for South America/Inca Empire/Andes/Peru/what have you. If such an article were created, this redirect would be slightly more appropriate. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak retarget: to Inca Empire; otherwise delete. 141Pr 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
January 10
Kush Patel
- Kush Patel → American Red Cross (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This started out in 2005 as an unsourced bio stub, which simply claimed that someone named Kush Patel was the youngest living recipient of the Clara Barton Award [18]. If it were an article it would now be subject to BLPPROD, but it was tagged as a stub and then redirected to the unsourced stub Clara Barton Award, which has itself since been redirected to American Red Cross. The Red Cross article does not mention the Clara Barton Award, although such an award does exist. I have been unable to verify that Kush Patel was awarded the Clara Barton Award, let alone that he was the youngest living recipient in 2005. I think we should delete this redirect. Meters (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. App Academy contains some information about a person by this name (who may or may not be the same person), but if a redirect there is warranted (I have no opinion at present) it can be created fresh to avoid the BLP issues in this redirect's history. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination 141Pr 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Singular "Window" redirects
- Window 3.1 → Windows 3.1x (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Window 95 → Windows 95 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Window 98 → Windows 98 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Window XP → Windows XP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
As the creator of those other "Window" redirects back in 2018-2019 which have since all been deleted (and yes, I moved on from making all those bizarre/nonsensical redirects 4 years ago and learned from it), I hereby nominate these, which haven't been created by me, to be deleted as well. Colgatepony234 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Implausible redirect. 141Pr 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible and as the trend to delete similar ones has generally been supported. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible form. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia
- Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia → Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The only reference to "Amadeus I" in the target article is a wikilink to Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of "Amadeus I of Sardinia". ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- ”Victor Amadeus I” was the 1587-born Duke, there is no discussion. The correct title of this topic is Victor Amadeus II of Savoy. Italian Minister of Culture --Revolution Yes (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as confusing. He was the first of his name to reign over Sardinia, but he is always called "Victor Amadeus II". Srnec (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:TOP10
- Wikipedia:TOP10 → Wikipedia:Top Ten Wikipedias (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:TOPTEN → Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These redirects should point to the same place, or to a new disambiguation page if that is impossible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment/Question (as creator of the latter): TOP10 was created in 2008 and I can't find any links that actually use it as a redirect while TOPTEN was created in 2014 has about 36 usages as redirect during CFD discussions.
- It looks like Wikipedia:Top Ten Wikipedias's last talk page entry was also from 2008. Do we anticipate ever needing the TOP10 redirect for that meta discussion? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Wikipedia:TOP10 to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list. Wikipedia:Top Ten Wikipedias is itself a soft redirect to a Meta page which barely gets any maintenance – it has been edited once in the last two years. – The second target on the other hand is a section of a guideline and explicitly mentions the "Top 10" lists as well their inappropriate use for categorization. Far more relevant, I think. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Wikipedia:TOP10 to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list as per User:Dsuke1998AEOS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Wikipedia:TOP10 to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list as per User:Dsuke1998AEOS. 141Pr 17:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Taiyuan Station[X]
- Taiyuan Station2 → Taiyuan railway station (Taiwan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Taiyuan Station3 → Taiyuan railway station (Taiwan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Taiyuan Station4 → Taiyuan railway station (Taiwan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Taiyuan Station5 → Taiyuan railway station (Taiwan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A series of redirects left over from either pagemove- or copypaste-vandalism many years ago, which were already declined for speedy deletion as test page vandalism and were left as redirects instead. They were tagged for speedy deletion again just now by User:Astro.furball, which I declined procedurally as WP:G6 was invalid criteria for this, the redirects themselves are not obvious vandalism (G3) and are not recently created (R3). However, none are valid search terms or navigational tools, and none have pageviews at all; all should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, although redirects created when reverting page move vandalism are eligible for G3 speedy deletion it is not immediately clear if that was the case here so listing at RfD was the right call. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom as unreasonable redirects that serve no valid purpose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. 141Pr 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Inceptor
- Inceptor → TimeSplitters: Future Perfect (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The word "inceptor" isn't unique to TimeSplitters. A quick Google search found that the term is more associated with Warhammer 40,000 than anything else. In addition, this appears to be WP:GAMECRUFT #6 (non-notable character). Dominicmgm (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate or soft redirect to Wiktionary. as an ambiguous term. wikt:inceptor means "beginner", therefore it is not specific to the game. MusiBedrock (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also linking "Inception (disambiguation)" into the new disambiguation page here. MusiBedrock (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft retarget to its Wiktionary entry per MusiBedrock. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Cyberden
- Cyberden → TimeSplitters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)- This redirect used to be a stub about a level in TimeSplitters (I think this might be gamecruft, though I'm not familiar with that guideline). Also, searching onwiki for "cyberden" reveals that "Cyberden" or "The Cyberden" is (was?) a music label, founded by the same man who founded Xorcist; News search suggests that this label isn't notable. Searching Wiktionary finds nothing either. So for lack of a good target, I guess this redirect should be deleted. Duckmather (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Talk:1930–1945 in Western fashion/Archive 2
My Face"/"Making Love With My Wife
- My Face"/"Making Love With My Wife → Life Is a Grand... (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Besides the odd use of a slash and improper use of quotation marks, there is no topic named "Making Love With My Wife" in the track listing of the target article; "Making Love With My Wife" is mentioned in the article, but in a way where the mention has more affinity with Henry Badowski than the target article's subject. (This redirect was an article for 3 years [2007–2010] prior to being subject to a WP:BLAR; apparently, the article was about a 2-sided single with two songs by these names.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Revert to the article and move to My Face/Making Love With My Wife to fix the title issues. The article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria and so should not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was redirected over 13 years ago I don't really see why something redirected that long ago and not appearing controversial can't be discussed at RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Jaegaseung genocide
- Jaegaseung genocide → Jaegaseung (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Term appears to be coined by the redirect's creator. I have found no reliable sources in English or Korean which describe a "Jaegaseung genocide" or even use the term "genocide" in relation to the Jaegaseung's assimilation into Korean culture. As the term "genocide" has a very specific legal and scholarly application, I am quite certain this was self-coined, but perhaps I have been looking in the wrong places. This redirect should be kept if reliable sources are provided contrary to my own research. Yue🌙 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Yue: If the name "Jaegaseung genocide" is inappropriate, should the redirect instead be named "Jaegaseung assimilation", "Assimilation of the Jaegaseung", or something similar? I unfortunately don't know of a WP:COMMONNAME for this event, but believe that "Jaegaseung genocide" is a possible search term for the event (redirect names do not have to be neutral or even factual, see WP:RNEUTRAL). CJ-Moki (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not inappropriate per se, but I don't think a term as specific as "genocide" should be thrown around. And from a Google search of the exact phrase, it seems like the only use of "Jaegaseung genocide" on the internet right now is this very discussion, so hardly a common or likely search term for the event. Yue🌙 06:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Yue: If this is "hardly a common or likely search term for the event," do you think the redirect should be re-named, or deleted? I would like to have a redirect for this event, but it unfortunately seems like there isn't a common name for it in English or Korean. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not inappropriate per se, but I don't think a term as specific as "genocide" should be thrown around. And from a Google search of the exact phrase, it seems like the only use of "Jaegaseung genocide" on the internet right now is this very discussion, so hardly a common or likely search term for the event. Yue🌙 06:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, made-up term with zero search results. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella (upcoming film)
- Cinderella (upcoming film) → Cinderella (2021 Indian film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No longer upcoming. MusiBedrock (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Previous RfDs: Cinderella (2021 film) and more importantly the inaugural rendition of Cinderella (upcoming film). J947 † edits 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: pageviews have calmed down in the last 8 months so I agree; K4 does not so much matter. It is probably now more misleading than helpful, even if at least one old link does exist. AngusWOOF's suggestion in the previous RfD to point the redirect to Cinderella (disambiguation)#Films in preparation for the next film thus titled being announced is okay in my opinion, but probably not worth it especially given the next film's page will probably be created at this title anyway. J947 † edits 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete slowly. The page views indicate that the usefulness of this redirect has passed. I've fixed the one incoming link from article space (which being unpiped was also misleading) but this should not be deleted before seven days have passed since the nomination to allow at least some time for that to propagate to mirrors, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as no longer useful --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Doom (video game)
- Doom (video game) → Doom (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Doom (videogame) → Doom#Entertainment franchise (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Doom (game) → Doom#Entertainment franchise (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Doom (computer game) → Doom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
All should be consistent, and ... all should target Doom#Entertainment franchise, the current target of 2 of the 3 considering that target explains why the phrase "game" or "video game" is ambiguous. However, my edit on Doom (video game) to make all three consistent was reverted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree and will add my Support to your preferred target. We should ping @Whoop whoop pull up: in case they have any strong objections, though. 193.37.240.37 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- You mean "in case she has any strong objections", of course. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that all three should target Doom (franchise), as that target covers the entire Doom franchise, including both the video games and the tabletop game, and pointing the three redirects to that target allows readers to be taken directly to what they're looking for without having to click through the disambiguation page first. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 21:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Doom (franchise) per whoop whoop. signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doom (computer game) also redirects to the dab (but not a dab section), so whatever the outcome, may be applied to that as well. Jay 💬 02:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to Doom (computer game) being brought up very late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note I've tagged Doom (computer game) and added it to this discussion per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget all to Doom (franchise) per Whoop whoop pull up. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget all to Doom (franchise) per Whoop whoop's suggestion --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
January 9
Indian bullfrog
- Indian bullfrog → Euphlyctis hexadactylus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget, as the name is not mentioned in the current target and the capitalised version (Indian Bullfrog) points to Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, where this name is actually used. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Hoplobatrachus tigerinus per nom. There does seem to be some usage of "Indian Bullfrog" as an alternate name for the current target, but they are the overwhelming minority, and all seem to stem from this [19] (not sure if this is the original or not) which conspicuously has no citations for that particular name. Potentially some confusion comes from these two species apparently being commonly used in the frog legs trade [20] (and so are often mentioned together). A7V2 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Amphibian Species of the World does have a citation for "Indian bullfrog"; it's CITES, and searching at [21] does show Indian bullfrog listed as a common name for E. hexadactylus. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow... I read that as like "cites", as in they left a field blank or something like that! Especially since the other citations were much more detailed. I still think the name "Indian Bullfrog" is much more associated with Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, but a hatnote should be added. A7V2 (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Amphibian Species of the World does have a citation for "Indian bullfrog"; it's CITES, and searching at [21] does show Indian bullfrog listed as a common name for E. hexadactylus. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Hoplobatrachus tigerinus as per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject banner
- Template:WikiProject banner shell (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] →
This redirect was created around 5 years ago to point to the banner shell. Banner shells, however, are not banners, and have a supported much shorter redirect anyway, Template:Wpbs. If there is value to this redirect, it's as a pointer to Template:WPBannerMeta, but that case is already quite well supported (i.e. it doesn't need a redirect). I'd prefer deletion. Izno (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It has 195 transclusions, and all of those which I checked use the redir correctly - as a wrapper for two or more WikiProject banners. I do not see any which might be a mistake for WPBannerMeta. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Redrose. No evidence that any confusion is being caused, or that deletion will bring any other benefits. The existence of one redirect is irrelevant to whether a different one should exist or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I agree with the nominator's point about the redirect not including "shell", and transclusions aside, I really don't think readers looking up this title as a search term are intending to locate Template:WPBannerMeta since I really don't believe most editors are trying to create new WikiProject templates. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Cassier
- Cassier → Ernst Cassirer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete: this is an error that inhibits effective Search Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: For reference, here are the search results. (I currently have no opinion about the fate of this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Christian church directory of the United States
- Christian church directory of the United States → Christianity in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There doesn't seem to be a "directory" of any sort in the target article. In addition, this title was an article for about a week in 2008 prior to being subject to a WP:BLAR that resulted in this title targeting List of Christian denominations ... then three months later (in 2008), the redirect was retargeted to its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment the present page that seems closest to both the title and apparent intent is Template:Christian denominations in the United States. As a reader-facing template (it's a sidebar template) there wouldn't be any issues with a mainspace redirect targetting it if there is no better target in mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yvj
There is no use of "Yvj" at this capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because it's WP:CHEAP unless there is a valid case for WP:REDLINK for a specific subject per WP:DIFFCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - at the very least this double redirect should be fixed, targeting Yeovil Junction railway station and tagging with Template:R avoided double redirect in case the DAB page at YVJ is restored or it is changed in some other way. A7V2 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep/Procedurally retarget to Yeovil Junction railway station: My vote is to keep if YVJ is restored to a DAB as WP:CHEAP and to retarget to Yeovil Junction railway station if it is to remain a redirect. With the A2r tag per A7V2. TartarTorte 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural retarget to Yeovil Junction railway station as a double redirect. MusiBedrock (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Danger noodle
- Danger noodle → Snake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Cutesy term used to refer to snakes, specifically venomous snakes. From a quick WP:BEFORE: - No pages link to danger noodle - A google search brings up 1 potentially-reliable source ([22]). The article only mentions "danger noodle" or "danger noodles" 5 times, so that wouldn't work as a source. Other sources off the bat look like blogs / unreliable. - A google books search brings up self-published / unreliable books. - A google news search brings up the same results. - A Google News Archive search brings up partial results (newspaper articles with "danger" and "noodle" in it, but not "danger noodle") I would either suggest deletion or a weak retarget to Venomous snake. Someone-123-321 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Sturmovik, who seems semi active (judging from the fact their latest edit was on 26 December 2022) Someone-123-321 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just trying to make the site more useful as an alternative to users needing to turn to a commercial product to get pointed to a Wiktionary entry. Danger Noodle as a term for snake was making the meme rounds when I made the redirect and I figured if a user typed it in Wikipedia search the site should try and help them.Sturmovik (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, memes come and go. For example, Big Chungus is a redirect to a section in another article (Wabbit Twouble to be more specific), meanwhile said meme has been dead for a while now. However, it's status of being alive or dead doesn't matter for wikipedia. All that matters is if the meme is notable or not. For example, BC has been featured in enough official media and other RS that it deserves a redirect. From my relatively-extensive search, I could find only 1 RS even mentioning danger noodle. Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just trying to make the site more useful as an alternative to users needing to turn to a commercial product to get pointed to a Wiktionary entry. Danger Noodle as a term for snake was making the meme rounds when I made the redirect and I figured if a user typed it in Wikipedia search the site should try and help them.Sturmovik (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Soft Redirect to its wiktionary entry. Otherwise delete as obscure meme at best. --Lenticel (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. My understanding is that WP:V and usefulness is the main standard for redirects, not notability (which is not mentioned at all in the instructions at WP:RFD). You've already show it's a real term that people use and searching through Google books finds it's used generically for a "snake" (and not just venomous ones) in some of them: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28] (this is just from the first page of results: [29], there are more). And looking in newspapers.com, there's at least six references in their corpus: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Deleting serves no purpose soft redirect to wikitionary seems suboptimal to having content about this in a Wikipedia article. Both Snake and Venomous snake don't seem structured to making adding this easy but it'd be possible. The only reference to this term in an article is DoggoLingo#Other animals so possibly Retarget to that, which [36] supports it being a possibly origin of the term, although I'm not sure that's true, but it's another reasonable target. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or Soft redirect. As memes go this is neither obscure or transient with over 9 million hits on google from at least 2017 (used by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield on their official Facebook page [37])to 2 days ago (used by the Transportation Security Administration on their official Instagram page [38]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft redirect. I can't imagine anyone searching this expecting to get pointed to snake. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary where a reader who has never heard the term actually gets an explanation. Compared to eight centuries of English-language writing about snakes [39], a jocular name used for a few years would not belong in an encyclopedia article venomous snakes per WP:PROPORTION:
a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic
. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Under the Boardwalk (2022 film)
- Under the Boardwalk (2022 film) → Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Please delete this redirect because 2022 is over and Under the Boardwalk has no new release date. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This was the page's title from creation to a few days ago, and the article sates it was expected to be released in 2022 and the official website [40] still says the release date is 2022, so it is highly plausible people will continue to look for it under this title as it will still be referred to as a 2022 film in old sources, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Thryduulf. Even if it didn't release in 2022 (and the website still lists that as the release date), the originally planned release date still makes for a plausible title. Regards, SONIC678 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Old Libya
- Old Libya → History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Term not mentioned in the target article. Also, the term has no precise meaning – "old Libya" can mean anything from Ottoman Tripolitania to Italian Libya to Kingdom of Libya to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi (current target).
The redirect page is not linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia.
Creator has a history of creating controversial redirects. — kashmīrī TALK 09:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Retarget to History of Libya: The target covers anything that anyone would conceive of as "Old Libya" and links them there if there is an article on that period of Libyan history. TartarTorte 12:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Libya (disambiguation), as this seems a more plausible search term for Ancient Libya, Italian Libya or Kingdom of Libya (predecessors to the current state). Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to History of Libya as this seems most likely to be useful. The infobox at the top links to all of the potential periods of Libya a searcher could have meant, and it might be that the overview article is more helpful to them anyway. A7V2 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to History of Libya, not exactly the best target but it is at least beneficial to our readers as a starting article. --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Redirects to ITV1#ITV1 +1
- ITV1 +1 (tv channel) → ITV1 +1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- ITV +1 (tv channel) → ITV +1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These 2 redirects should be speedy deleted per CSD G7 because these redirects are an implausible and recently created redirects. Bassie f (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't rename redirects. It complicates edit histories, so it becomes tough to work out what happened here. J947 † edits 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- These 2 redirects should be speedy deleted actually and replaced by ITV +1 (TV channel) and ITV1 +1 (TV channel), I would tag them {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and also proper capitalization Bassie f (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged both redirects with Template:db-r3 just now. Bassie f (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- And I've declined the speedy deletions because they are being discussed here with opinions that do not support deletion they are not eligible for speedy deletion. They would also not be eligible for R3 anyway as they are not implausible typos - the capitalisation of TV as tv is highly plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged both redirects with Template:db-r3 just now. Bassie f (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- These 2 redirects should be speedy deleted actually and replaced by ITV +1 (TV channel) and ITV1 +1 (TV channel), I would tag them {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and also proper capitalization Bassie f (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Wise mystical tree
- Wise mystical tree → Stormfall: Age of War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wise Mystical Tree → Stormfall: Age of War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target. References this meme, but unless there's relevant information about it at the target the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a generic redirect from an unmentioned fictional element. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I should note that the character is mentioned in Character.ai. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
International Cricket in 2024-25
- International Cricket in 2024-25 → International cricket (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unhelpful to the reader as not discussed in the article. J947 † edits 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated next year (in late 2024). Duckmather (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete until enough reliable information is known about this season. The WP:CRYSTALs in our mine won't start forming until then. Regards, SONIC678 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: At the point this is needed, a separate article will be created anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to ICC Future Tours Programme#ICC Future Tours Programme (2024–2031) which is where we seem to have the only information about international cricket in 2024-25. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- None of the events mentioned in that section looks like they'll definitely happen in the 2024-25 cricket season (which by convention will be September 2024 to April 2025). Of the items mentioned there for 2024 or 2025, 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup is in the 2024 season (which will be May to September 2024) not the 2024-25 season, the 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup and ICC Champions Trophy don't yet have a date (so maybe will be in the 2024-25 season, but maybe not), so nothing definitive about actual events happening in that specific time period. Thus, I support deletion over redirection. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not needed for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- As of now, page has been redirected to ICC Future Tours Programme#ICC Future Tours Programme (2024–2031), Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Asad Zaman Khan
- Asad Zaman Khan → Hum Films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target, and the filmography listed below the redirect includes largely non-Hum-Films-related work. Deletion seems appropriate unless someone has sources and can write a stub. signed, Rosguill talk 03:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
- Hollywood Chamber of Commerce → Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I recommend deleting this redirect. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is a different organization from the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. The Hollywood Chamber is likely to be worthy of an article of its own, as it is the administrator of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, but redirecting to a different chamber of commerce is just misleading to readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Hollywood Walk of Fame (and bold it there per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT) where this are discussed to an extent, and this could be expanded a bit if the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is not independently notable. I say "weak" as my second preference would be to delete per the nom and WP:RFD#D10. Certainly the current target isn't suitable. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Scandal sheet
- Scandal sheet → Tabloid journalism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Suggested new target: Scandal sheet (disambiguation). Please see the discussion below, which was begun on the talkpage of the redirect page. Eric talk 01:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Uanfala, Narky Blert, Mathglot, and JHunterJ: Hello all. I picked you as my victims for this question as I saw your names appearing frequently in the history for Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. I ran into some confusion when (after learning of the 1952 film Scandal Sheet), I ran a wp search on the string (all lowercase) "scandal sheet", which led me (via a redirect on "Scandal sheet") to Tabloid journalism. At first I wrongly concluded, with surprise, that we somehow did not have an entry for the film. When I tentatively stuck my toe in the waters of creating a new disambiguation page at Scandal sheet (disambiguation), I discovered the page already exists, and that it redirects to the disambiguation page Scandal Sheet, which lists four films by that name. Am I right in thinking that maybe Scandal sheet should redirect to Scandal sheet (disambiguation), and that that disambig page should list the tabloid journalism article, the films, and maybe to the Wiktionary entry as well (wikt:scandal sheet)? I considered trying to bring this about, but quickly concluded that I was more likely to commit a blunder than make an improvement. Any thoughts? Eric talk 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gud catch! I've seen this type of problem before; it's not uncommon. Either (1) everything should be on the DAB page, or (2) there should be a {{redirect||Scandal sheet|Scandal sheet (disambiguation)}} hatnote on tabloid journalism. It's a question of whether the lowercase version is not or is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; a matter for WP:CONSENSUS. My feeling is that it is, because none of the films is well-known; so count me as !voting for option (2).
- The Wiktionary link should indeed be added somewhere; another good catch. I'd suggest at the top of the DAB page as {{wikt|scandal sheet}} per MOS:WTLINK.
- On a procedural note, I checked the links to lowercase Scandal sheet, and they're all OK. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the above. However, I don't think many readers will seek the Tabloid journalism article by searching for "scandal sheet", so I'd be inclined to make Scandal sheet a redirect to the dab ("Scandal sheet" and "scandal sheet" are the same page: as configured here, the wiki software doesn't distinguish capitalisation for the first character of a page title). I wouldn't add a Wiktionary link: the topic is covered here on Wikipedia, so there's no need to send people elsewhere. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the term "scandal sheet": if it's just a synonym for tabloid (as is stated in the tabloid journalism article), then we can just link to that article. If, on the the contrary, it has a different shade of meaning (as seems to be implied by the Wiktionary entry), then we can rework the information from Wiktionary into the description of the dab entry (in that case, it would be acceptable to ignore MOS:DABBLUE and have links in the description to Sensationalism and possibly Celebrity). – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your input! I was sure something wasn't quite right. I would say that the term "scandal sheet" is in much less common use now than it was during the era the first three movies were made, and so I might speculate that the majority of searchers on that term would not necessarily have term definition as their primary goal. Eric talk 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Eric:, good catch, and good comments. The only thing I'd add, is to consider raising this issue at WP:Redirects for discussion, where you'd get a wider audience. If you do, you could top it with a {{Discussion moved from}} template linking this page, and add a {{Discussion moved to}} below, linking the new one. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your input! I was sure something wasn't quite right. I would say that the term "scandal sheet" is in much less common use now than it was during the era the first three movies were made, and so I might speculate that the majority of searchers on that term would not necessarily have term definition as their primary goal. Eric talk 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the above. However, I don't think many readers will seek the Tabloid journalism article by searching for "scandal sheet", so I'd be inclined to make Scandal sheet a redirect to the dab ("Scandal sheet" and "scandal sheet" are the same page: as configured here, the wiki software doesn't distinguish capitalisation for the first character of a page title). I wouldn't add a Wiktionary link: the topic is covered here on Wikipedia, so there's no need to send people elsewhere. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the term "scandal sheet": if it's just a synonym for tabloid (as is stated in the tabloid journalism article), then we can just link to that article. If, on the the contrary, it has a different shade of meaning (as seems to be implied by the Wiktionary entry), then we can rework the information from Wiktionary into the description of the dab entry (in that case, it would be acceptable to ignore MOS:DABBLUE and have links in the description to Sensationalism and possibly Celebrity). – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
———
Hatnote it. Scandal sheets (tabloid journalism) are the primary topic of lower-case "scandal sheet". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. How is the primary topic determined? See my last comment in the initial discussion above. Eric talk 22:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ÿ
- Ÿ → Close central rounded vowel#Close central compressed vowel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirected to Diaeresis (diacritic) until just a few months ago the target changed to a phonetic sound represented by that accented letter. This diaeresized Y has use in languages like French. Keep the current target, or retarget back? Colgatepony234 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Diaeresis (diacritic) per nom. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate: While WP:TWODABS as a policy is to be followed, I think both are reasonable targets; however, if we add a hatnote to Diaeresis (diacritic), it would be the third hatnote on the page and if we were to hatnote Close central rounded vowel, not everyone would see as it currently targets a section. I think that in a bit of an WP:IAR argument, DABifying without a consideration of WP:PTOPIC seems to be the easiest way to get readers to what they are looking for when searching for Ÿ. TartarTorte 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambig neither target seems to be clearly primary over the other. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as per User:TartarTorte. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambig per the above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, lowercase IJ (digraph) is also a possible intended meaning. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
United American States
- United American States → United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
One of many needless and improbable redirects to the target page. I've checked Google, Google Scholar, and Wiktionary, and it doesn't seem that the US has ever been referred by this name. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - seems like an extremely unlikely way to search for this. Given the sheer recognisability/familiarity of the United States of America, I'd say this more likely a search term for the Organization of American States. But even that seems a bit unlikely. Delete unless some reasonable justification or historical usage can be found. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete since the redirect is not exactly wrong and is not ambiguous, but rather because the redirect was created 2 months ago, and we've gone this far without it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- How is "we've gone this far without [the redirect]" a valid reason for the redirect's deletion? DecafPotato (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've never seen this phrase anywhere before, thus the "weak" ... and TartarTorte's point about confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- How is "we've gone this far without [the redirect]" a valid reason for the redirect's deletion? DecafPotato (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I think there is a potential for confusion with OAS; however, Mexico's official name is the United Mexican States, so in theory someone could apply that same formulation to the US and get the United American States. I'll admit, it's not terribly likely, but I think this is why it exists. TartarTorte 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Having said all of that, the Spanish name for the United States is "Estados Unidos [de América]". Where as the translation of United American States, "Estados Unidos Americanos", does appear in some older documents in Spanish, it does not seem to be a super common name. I think in general it probably wouldn't cause a whole lot of issues if deleted, but I guess in the odd circumstance someone does use this formulation it could help to retarget them. TartarTorte 00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Week keep – I don't necessarily see how this could be confused with the OAS, and the Spanish translation per TartarTorte leads me to believe that this is a WP:CHEAP redirect, even if a bit illogical to typical English speak. DecafPotato (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CHEAP. I don't care that "United American States" should be deleted for such reasons. MusiBedrock (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like too many unhelpful redirects are kept on the basis of being WP:CHEAP, which is only an essay, not an official policy. Your rational for voting keep is unclear. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you wish to argue against someone recommending keep on the basis of an essay (especially one with as much community endorsement as WP:CHEAP) then you really need to have a much stronger basis for deletion than merely "improbable" (of equal standing) and "needless" (explicitly rejected). We don't delete redirects just because some people don't find them helpful, they need to be harmful in some way and that harm needs to outweigh any usefulness. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like too many unhelpful redirects are kept on the basis of being WP:CHEAP, which is only an essay, not an official policy. Your rational for voting keep is unclear. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless. I don't see any significant potential for confusion with the OAS, but I do see significant potential usefulness to the current target for a non-native speaker. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
January 8
Lateen Sail
- Lateen Sail → Lateen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There's already an otherwise-identical redirect with the second word lowercase, so that should make this entirely unnecessary. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a valid {{R from miscapitalisation}}, and it's also unambiguous. No reason to delete. CycloneYoris talk! 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- CycloneYoris, I thought {{R from miscapitalisation}} was only for the opposite situation. Regardless, typing this capitalisation into the search bar would still take you to the lowercase version if this redirect didn't exist. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- R from miscapitalisation is used for any redirect that features some type of miscapitalization in its title, as is the case with this redirect. The fact that the lowercase version exists is irrelevant, since this redirect also aids readers in finding the article they seek, which is the main purpose of creating a redirect in the first place. CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as no valid reason to delete applies. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep what possible harm is done by a redirect that a user feels is superfluous? People will always search for things you haven't though of, hence redirects like this have a job to do. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Cutting Ties (story)
- Cutting Ties (story) → List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters#Mackenzie Calhoun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
As far as I can see, Enwiki has nothing about this subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I created this redirect. I apparently did so in 2009, back when I was perhaps a bit more indiscriminate in creating redirects. Feel free to remove it. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Cutting Ties is a DAB whose only entry is this (story) redirect. If RFD consensus is 'delete' here, that should also be deleted; otherwise, it should be converted to a redirect to the same target per MOS. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The dab page Cutting Ties says "a Star Trek story from the anthology Star Trek Mirror Universe: Obsidian Alliances". That story is listed at Star_Trek:_New_Frontier#Mirror_Universe_(2007–2009), so retarget the redirect there. The other meaning was removed from the encyclopedia per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutting Ties (web series), so I agree with redirecting Cutting Ties likewise. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Cutting Ties (story) per Fayenatic london. Since several new entries have been added to the disambiguation page Cutting Ties, it is no longer a candidate for being redirected itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Disting.
- Disting. → Distinguishing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete as its purpose is unclear (as it happens, we have an article on Disting). An anonymous username, not my real name 19:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless redirect with the full stop and, legally speaking, I've never heard or seen it ever shortened to that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is apparently here for the usage in law textbooks and case reports. Someone with access to Raistrick's Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations might find it documented there. But delete, we do not need it in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: assuming this is an actual, unambiguous abbreviation then this redirect helps the reader seeking to find out what the abbr. stands for. J947 † edits 21:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per J947; I'm seeing no good reason to delete here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Keepper J947. No reason to delete anunambiguousabbreviation that is apparently used in reliable sources. A7V2 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)- Keep per J947 as a plausible abbreviation. MusiBedrock (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Though this may be an abbreviation for "distinguishing", there is a good chance that a new-ish editor could be trying to link Disting at the end of the sentence, but accidentally include the period their link ... Which would then obviously go to the wrong article. However, in most cases, consensus results in the deleting redirects that end with a period. (For a recent related example, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Catholicism..) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a normal full stop misnomer – abbrvs. end as such. J947 † edits 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- You are correct, but in this case, since Distinguishing seems to define the use of a word in certain contexts and not as a proper subject (such as a person [link the shorthand abbreviations used for several botanists and zoologists] or entity's proper, capitalized name), the amount of harm this redirect creates seems to outweigh its usefulness. We can place a hatnote on Disting if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a normal full stop misnomer – abbrvs. end as such. J947 † edits 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
List of largest land carnivores
Archangelia
- Archangelia → Pteridinium (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No mention at target, and a google search for the name says it is either a girl's name or an herb. I could not find any English sources relating "Archangelia" to Pteridinium. As such, recommend retargeting to angelica archangelica, as that appears to be the more common meaning in English. I could also see dabifying, given that one of the two incoming links appears to have a Russian source that would support the current target (I do not consider this source above because it does contribute to the English WP:COMMONNAME). HouseBlastertalk 20:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete (unless a source can be found showing that Archangelia has been treated as a synonym of Pteridinium or Onegia). For the herb, "Archangelia" is a misspelling of "archangelica". A genus of Ediacaran organism named Archangelia has been described and is linked from List of Ediacaran genera; that link should not go to the herb or the girls name. The list claims (with two sources) that Archangelia is a synonym of Onegia, but the sources given don't mention Archangelia at all. There is a source cited at Pteridinium ([41]) that treats Onegia as a synonym of Pteridinium, but there are no sources on Wikipedia that treat Archangelia as a synonym of Onegia (or Pteridinium). Archangelia is mentioned as a valid genus in a 2012 paper (although the lead author is apparently the same person who first described the genus in 1979). With no sources for synonymy, there isn't a good target for the redirect and it should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Reinaldo (given name)
Biblical literature
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Biblical literature
Bible and Tanach
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Bible and Tanach
User:R. fiend/Redirect test
- User:R. fiend/Redirect test → Ozone#Use in medicine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] MusiBedrock (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete as an old cross-namespace redirect with no particular page views. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep by default, it does not matter either way. It can simply be left alone. J947 † edits 10:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Useless redirect created as a test. Why should it be kept if it's not serving any purpose? Deletion seems preferable in this case. CycloneYoris talk! 19:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for lack of any convincing reason to do anything else. Userspace cross-namespaces redirects do not cause any harm, and there's no reason to expect them to be well-viewed. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as completely harmless. The only reasons to delete redirects from user subpages are (1) if the user requests it, (2) it is actively causing harm in some way. Even in the latter case, which does not apply here, it is usually better to convert it to a soft redirect than to outright delete it as that maintains the link the author desired (and absent any evidence to the contrary we must assume they still do desire). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Subsequently
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Subsequently
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Draft:HDCYT
- Draft:HDCYT → Charlie Bit My Finger (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unnecessary and redundant draft. HDCYT already redirects here. MusiBedrock (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Draftspace redirect was created way before the other one in mainspace. Though I don't get why anyone would create a draft for a redirect? Regardless, keeping seems best. CycloneYoris talk! 06:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep WP:SRE no need for maintenance J947 † edits 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. A7V2 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health
- Draft:Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health → UCSF School of Medicine#Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This Draft version is a remnant, a duplicate of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health redirect, somehow left behind after a move. Grorp (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Also a harmless {{R from move}}. No reason to delete. CycloneYoris talk! 06:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per CycloneYoris and the spirit of WP:SRE. A7V2 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
GA nomination counterparts in article space
- Polyclonal response/GA2 → Polyclonal B cell response (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Juice Wrld/GA1 → Juice Wrld (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Asexuality/GA2 → Asexuality (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA1 → Burger King Specialty Sandwiches (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA2 → Burger King Specialty Sandwiches (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Celilo Falls/GA1 → Celilo Falls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The Battle of the Labyrinth/GA1 → The Battle of the Labyrinth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Georgia Tech traditions/GA1 → Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Great Western Railway/GA1 → Great Western Railway (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA1 → Salimuzzaman Siddiqui (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA2 → Salimuzzaman Siddiqui (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Alvin Kersh/GA1 → Alvin Kersh (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1 → Akhtar Hameed Khan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2 → Akhtar Hameed Khan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 → Underground Electric Railways Company of London (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These redirects look similar to good article nominations, which can be found on their respective talk subpages (just because that's the case doesn't mean similar titles should appear in article space). As stated at User:Vahurzpu/Subpage redirects for deletion, they also don't have any meaningful history that seems to be worth preserving. I'm proposing to delete these (but leave their talkpages, the actual GA nominations, intact) unless someone can provide a justification, though I'm also open to other options if necessary. Regards, SONIC678 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The Juice Wrld one was one of my old nominations. I created it because it makes for easy navigation by hitting the 'Article' button in the top left. I used to do these because I figured there was no harm in doing it, who would care? Evidently, someone does, so it's no big deal if it gets deleted, but I don't think there's any real harm to them myself. dannymusiceditor oops 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mild Keep as per DannyMusicEditor. People might still look at the good article nomination and this provides a link back to the article. Doesn’t appear to do any harm. If there is some harm (e.g it pollutes search) then delete them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Great Western Railway/GA1 and Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1, both of these were created by the GA reviewer within minutes of the true GA pages (Talk:Great Western Railway/GA1 and Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 respectively). The claim
this provides a link back to the article
is demonstrably redundant: directly below the "GA Review" heading at the top of each true GA page we find a direct link to the article under consideration, plus some other links useful to the GA reviewer and the responders (these are generated by the{{al}}
template, which is added automatically by{{subst:GAN/subst}}
(via Template:GAN/preload) when a GA review is started). So the creation of the mainspace redirects was completely unnecessary, and remains so. Addendum: my previous comments also hold for Juice Wrld/GA1, Asexuality/GA2, The Battle of the Labyrinth/GA1, Georgia Tech traditions/GA1 and Alvin Kersh/GA1 without further qualification, also for Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA1 and Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA2 although for these two it is necessary to open a collapsed box in order to see them. So Delete these additional seven. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)- Second addendum: I feel that I should clarify. I was first alerted to this RfD by this notice and my first thought was "why would such a redirect be up for deletion - maybe the GA review page was moved in the past but even so, the redir should stay". I hadn't at that stage realised that this was a redir in main space but GA review discussion happens in Talk: space. Once I twigged that, I then assumed that the GA review had somehow been started in main space and subsequently moved to its correct location in talk space. At this stage, I was still looking at the talk page notice, I hadn't yet reached this RfD discussion. What I never expected was that the redir would link to the actual article that was up for GA. If the redir had been Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 → Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1, as it would have been if the GA review had been started in main space in error and then moved to Talk: space, I would have !voted keep; but my delete !vote stands, because the redirect isn't intuitive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The redirect may not be intuitive to you, however other people have described how its use as a link is intuitive to them so WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 applies. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Second addendum: I feel that I should clarify. I was first alerted to this RfD by this notice and my first thought was "why would such a redirect be up for deletion - maybe the GA review page was moved in the past but even so, the redir should stay". I hadn't at that stage realised that this was a redir in main space but GA review discussion happens in Talk: space. Once I twigged that, I then assumed that the GA review had somehow been started in main space and subsequently moved to its correct location in talk space. At this stage, I was still looking at the talk page notice, I hadn't yet reached this RfD discussion. What I never expected was that the redir would link to the actual article that was up for GA. If the redir had been Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 → Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1, as it would have been if the GA review had been started in main space in error and then moved to Talk: space, I would have !voted keep; but my delete !vote stands, because the redirect isn't intuitive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Delete for Polyclonal response/GA2, Celilo Falls/GA1, Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA1, Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA2, Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1 and Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2. In these six cases the true GA pages for these do not use
{{al}}
, and as far as I can tell, never did. They date from July 2008 or earlier, at a time when Template:GAN/subst did not use{{al}}
(it was added in October 2008). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC) - Keep per DannyMusicEditor. I have been annoyed in the past in this exact regard; I seem to glaze over the bolded article link. Not that it matters much either way, but to bring these redirects to RfD just nullifies the (tiny) positive efficiency they have. Again, not that it matters! J947 † edits 10:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all These are not meaningfully diffeent from mainspace /archive redirects, which were deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Richard E. Mayer/Archive. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all per DannyMusicEditor et al. These redirects are completely harmless and some people find the useful (WP:RFD#KEEP point 5). When keeping results in a benefit and no harm, and deletion results in no benefit and some harm, there is no justification at all for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all: I have to admit, I wouldn't expect to !vote "keep" for these redirects. But as DannyMusicEditor said above, they at least are serving a navigational purpose and are shortcuts to their main articles. This is not to say that we should be creating mainspace redirects for every GA nomination, to do so would be costly. But in the rare case they were, it's probably because of that very reason. And I doubt more than a handful of GA reviewers and nominators would be bothered at spending some more seconds for reaching their articles. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dsuke1998AEOS: Did you read my post of 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)? All GA talk pages created since 4 October 2008 have a direct link to the article below the "GA Review" heading. Therefore, in the absence of such redirects (i.e. the vast majority of GA talk pages), users are not
spending some more seconds for reaching their articles
. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- @Redrose64: It may be the case that some reviewers don't like using the link provided by the template. These redirects offer an alternative shortcut to the articles (though I don't think they should be created by anyone other than the reviewers). It's not a big deal if they are deleted, but they are completely harmless. For example, these redirects aren't interfering in searches for GA subpages. Nor do they are going to be accidentally linked from other articles. I don't see a reason to delete this tiny class of redirects. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dsuke1998AEOS: Did you read my post of 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)? All GA talk pages created since 4 October 2008 have a direct link to the article below the "GA Review" heading. Therefore, in the absence of such redirects (i.e. the vast majority of GA talk pages), users are not
- Keep all per DannyMusicEditor – that's a use case I haven't thought of but is useful nonetheless and I don't see why the redirects should be deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @DecafPotato: Please see my post immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I did see that--but as someone who looks at a lot of GANs it's a mistake I've made more times than I'd like to admit, even with the option to click "article". WP:CHEAP may also be a factor--you haven't provided a reason as to why they should be deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @DecafPotato: Please see my post immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Test for alkanes
Winter storm Goliath
January 7
84 Ursae Majoris
Glearwing
Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)
TLRCC
St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Wayne, MI)
King James (person)
Draft:Christopher Perrin
5 ½ Weeks Tour
- 5 ½ Weeks Tour → Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Questionable redirect per WP:XY. If they are billed co-headliners, they shouldn't be BLARRED for that coheadlining tour. The outcome of this co-headlining tour should be deleted by the similar situation to the AFD, I don't know Aspects pointed which redirect would be a suitable target to, either Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie or To Venus and Back, however it indicates that it failed WP:NTOUR. As a result, it should be deleted, in which a co-headlining tours cannot be BLARed by without sending to AFD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:9DFE:C535:CFDA:2BAF (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: I can barely see a connection between this title and the redirect target. Per WP:PLA we should not keep it unless if the relationship is sort of obvious. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Since there are not a lot of non-notable co-headlining concert tours that still have Wikipedia article, I did not think about bringing this article here or taking it to WP:AFD per the Maroon 5 and Counting Crows AfD. If necessary, I will take the article to WP:AFD, based on whatever consensus happens here. Aspects (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Both articles have mention of the tour, but I would prefer retarget to To Venus and Back#Tour as having more information. The pre-BLAR content may be merged into both articles. Jay 💬 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro)
State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI
Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureş)
- Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureş) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Pârâul lui Mihai (Cavnic) → Cavnic (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Pârâul lui Mihai (Someş) → Anieș (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Paraul lui Mihai (Mures) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Paraul lui Mihai (Cavnic) → Cavnic (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Paraul lui Mihai (Somes) → Anieș (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureș) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Pârâul lui Mihai (Someș) → Anieș (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
"Pârâul lui Mihai" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. See also the proposed deletion of Pârâul lui Mihai. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I found the versions without the diacritics, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 21:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Two of the ones without diacritics should be kept unless the redirects with the proper Romanian s-commas are also deleted: Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureș), Pârâul lui Mihai (Someș).—Ketil Trout (<><!) 23:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Markussep Talk 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:COSTLY. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Four of these had content that said they are tributaries of rivers, and were BLARd by the same editor. Either restore and merge content to their respective river articles, or discuss here on why their content is wrong. The BLAR summaries were
no info
,not sure this river exists
, andredirect, not notable
. They may not be rivers, but tributaries, and they may not be notable, but they had references (not English). However, if this tributary name is not real or is made up, the redirects may be deleted. Jay 💬 14:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)- If you check the last versions before I redirected them ([42], [43] and [44]) you see the same two references, Romanian books without any further details (no page number, for instance). "Administrația Națională Apelor Române - Cadastrul Apelor - București" probably refers to this book, but none of the three streams are listed in it. Meanwhile I found out that the streams actually exist, I found them on old hiking maps (in the old spelling "Pîrîul lui Mihai"): the Mureș tributary here (lower left corner, south of Ciumani), the Someș tributary here (in the middle, north of Anieș) and the Cavnic tributary here (lower right corner, west of the town Cavnic). None of them exceed 3 km length, and I don't think they're notable enough even to be mentioned in the articles about the main rivers. There is no mention of either of them on internet apart from Wikipedia and clones, all other pages are about the village Pârău lui Mihai. I probably should have PRODed them then. Markussep Talk 17:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
High Voltage (australiam album)
High Voltage (Mundial album)
- High Voltage (Mundial album) → High Voltage (1976 album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I can't determine from the history why this exists: "Mundial" is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to be a poorly executed attempt at naming an article about an album which had a worldwide release, as opposed to an Australia-only version. No reason for this redirect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as misleading. MusiBedrock (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - before deletion (and indeed whether kept or otherwise) edits up to 31 Jan 2009 need to be histmerged into High Voltage (1976 album) which created as a result of a copy-paste move, reverting the move to this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
High Voltage (Linkin Park Song)
- High Voltage (Linkin Park Song) → Linkin Park discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- High Voltage(Linkin Park Song) → Linkin Park discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete the version with with incorrect capitalization, and the the version with incorrect capitalization and missing space (WP:COSTLY). The correct version High Voltage (Linkin Park song) correctly targets Hybrid Theory. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep High Voltage (Linkin Park Song) (and retarget it to Hybrid Theory if it's kept), while it hasn't been getting many pageviews, I'm not sure it's really hurting things much. Delete High Voltage(Linkin Park Song) because of the incorrect spacing, however-the correct version will show up in the search bar. Regards, SONIC678 21:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep the first per Sonic as harmless and unambiguous, and delete the second due to the lack of spacing between the title and disambiguator. CycloneYoris talk! 05:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Unpartitioned India
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Unpartitioned India
Wiki Wiki Wiki
- Wiki Wiki Wiki → Wiki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This came up as a deletion candidate at the RfD of Wikiwikiwiki. No mention at the target and I could not find external search results except being used as the title (probably for effect) in a couple of writing pieces. The previous discussions said it was a "buzz word" or a well-known historic term, but did not provide any usages, and may have been referring to "Wiki Wiki". If not deletion, this may be retargeted to Wiki Wiki Web as a misnomer. Jay 💬 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous consensuses to keep. In February 2022 I wrote
This is not nonsensical at all - it is a now (mostly?) historic term with a specific meaning. When terms with a clear use could be confused with something with a similar name that was never known by the name then we just add a hatnote to the target making it easy for anyone using the term to find what they were looking for whether that is the correct name or the misnomer. What we do not do is make it harder for everybody to find the content they are looking for by deleting something.
and nothing has changed since then (or indeed since the 2011 discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC) - Delete. It was never a historic term and never had a specific meaning. I'm just going to copy what I wrote on the other RfD: The previous RfDs on this topic both concluded incorrectly. Despite the claim in the 2011 RfD that "Wiki Wiki Wiki" was a "buzz word" back in the day - it wasn't. I know this because I was there. I joined the community of the original WikiWikiWeb in 2000 and ended up being one of its "stewards" (akin to moderators). Nobody there used the term "WikiWikiWiki", with spaces or without, nor on MeatballWiki, the other major venue for discussion of wiki technology at the time. — Scott • talk 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your memories are not a reliable source. We have multiple people in multiple discussions saying that this definitely was a term that was in use at the time, and you saying the contrary. You can't both be correct, but for the reasons other people have explained it seems more likely that you are the one that is mistaken, and even if you aren't it's completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for consistency at this point. (This probably should have been bundled with the RfD for Wikiwikiwiki, but here we are now.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Steel1943, for consistency with the previously deleted redirect. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
FreeListener.com
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#FreeListener.com
Red Senate
Captain George Carleton
List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea
- List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea → Lists of box office number-one films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The redirect needs to be expanded into article as it constitutes list for 2023. The criteria applicable for deletion is R10 as follows: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Rickyurs (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep temporarily as 2023 is beginning to approach shortly, henceforth that the South Korean #1 box office list is to be kept whether expanded or not. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete per nom as the redirect was created rather prematurely. Without prejudice to recreating the list article at a later date. CycloneYoris talk! 22:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The first entry to this article is due on January 8, being the first week end of the year 2023. It is right time to delete the redirect. Rickyurs (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and overwrite with an article tomorrow. Deletion is not required and will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of South Korean films of 2023#Box office until we have enough content for expansion. Jay 💬 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Collaborationist Ukrainian Army
- Collaborationist Ukrainian Army → Russian people's militias in Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This was created at the same time as a recent discussion that proposed it as a new title for the target article at Talk:Russian people's militias in Ukraine#Requested move 15 November 2022. The suggestion was rejected, on the basis that no sources use the term and it suggests a link between Russian militias and the organized Ukrainian military that does not exist. Deletion for the redirect is appropriate if there are no sources that actually use this term. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support as this is an unlikely search term. —Michael Z. 17:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Opnion: Tend to be against. This name can better reflect the essence of these troops than the original name: 1. It is not a simple "militia". regular Russian army that participated in the war since 2014-2015; 2. By 2022, the Russian army has announced the integration of these troops into Russian army. 3. The puppet regimes have long regarded these troops as regular troops rather than militias. 罗放 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support: This has nothing to do with the Ukrainian Army. —Legoless (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
WX Piscis Austrini
Coronation chair
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Coronation chair
Dixie, Iowa
- Dixie, Iowa → New Boston, Iowa (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target. Sources of dubious reliability ([45], [46], [47]) consistently identify Dixie as a location in Mitchell County, Iowa, an article that also makes no mention of the place. I'm thus leaning towards deletion over redirecting there, and would appreciate additional input. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
January 6
Template:Reference necessary
- Template:Reference necessary → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Refnec → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Reference required → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:CFact → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Cfact → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Référence souhaitée → Template:Citation needed span (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I do not see why those should not redirect to Template:Citation needed. Veverve (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because it would break their current usage. Not all of these are used, but {{Refnec}} is, and some of the others are used once or twice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason to keep redirects as they are, specifically per TartarTorte's comment/method, which I have done several times myself. The discussion would get closed, and then if the redirects are to be deleted or retargeted, their transclusions would be bypassed and replaced with the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't have an opinion on keep vs. retarget, but I will note using AWB if the decision was made to retarget the uses of these templates could be replaced by {{citation needed span}} before the retarget happens. I have done that a time or two before for other similar scenarios, so if the decision is made that way, feel free to ping and I can do the replacements. TartarTorte 16:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget Template:Reference needed and Template:Refnec to Template:Citation needed per nom. Delete Template:CFact and Template:Cfact as unclear. No opinion on the foreign language one, but it should probably be retargeted as well if it continues to exist since it doesn't seem to refer to a "span". However, all existing transclusions of these redirects should be bypassed to transclude their current target (if the redirect is due to be retargeted or deleted.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Référence souhaitée per WP:FORRED. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series)
Transwiki
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Transwiki
Bigun
- Bigun → Lord of the Flies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Biguns → Lord of the Flies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article. Seems like a plot point in target article's subject, but without definition in the target article, readers could be scratching their heads wondering why they were redirected here. In addition, search results for the term "Bigun" (Search results) return quite a few articles using this term that are not related to the target article. (Apparently, "Bigun" is a surname for several people.) In addition, the Wiktionary page Wiktionary:bigun exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Algebra/set analogy
- Algebra/set analogy → Monoidal category (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. However, this redirect was an article for about four months during 2003 and 2004; it also seems as though per the edit history of the redirect, this redirect may be a {{R from merge}}. (But even with that possibility, the title of this redirect still seems misleading per my initial sentence.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Algebra I
- Algebra I → Mathematics education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Algebra II → Mathematics education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Algebra 1 → Mathematics education in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Algebra 2 → Mathematics education in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Algebra 3 → Precalculus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Both of these redirects Algebra I and Algebra II are {{R with history}}s, but neither one of them is mentioned specifically in their target article. Yes, these titles refer to a specific courses that is taken at universities, but without mention in the target article, the current redirection situation is not helpful. Due to the existing histories of Algebra I and Algebra II, and to avoid deletion, it may be best to retarget these redirects to Algebra. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Mathematics education in the United States (probably either to the section "Curricular content", or anchored to relevant sections) where these are explicitly mentioned and discussed, and which is what the original articles in the history of these are about (high school mathematics education in the United States). A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Retarget both(Re)target both forms of Algebra I and Algebra II to Mathematics education in the United States where both are discussed per A7V2. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- Retarget both to Mathematics education in the United States since both of these courses are unique to the United States. Sending to a section specifically referencing these courses would be fine. --seberle (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. It's not just US high schools, everywhere that algebra is being taught over several years or terms there's a tendency to label the individual units like that (examples from Russia [48] and from US higher education phttps://principedia.princeton.edu/principedia/algebra-i/], where the content is understandably unrelated to that of the high school modules). Noting also that the redirects Algebra 1, Algebra 2 and Algebra 3 also exist. – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The "Algebra 1" course at the Moscow University referred to by User:Uanfala is part of a university-level sequence on abstract algebra. Such courses may also be found in American universities over the span of one or two semesters. However, the term "Algebra 1" in the U.S. almost always refers to a high school course taught around 9th grade, and such courses are generally not found outside of the U.S. The university level course is usually referred to in English as "Abstract Algebra". Most English-speaking people searching for "Algebra I" or "Algebra 1" are probably looking for the high school course, so it should redirect to Mathematics Education in the United States. --seberle (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to adding Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3 to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)- @A7V2, Mdewman6, Seberle, and Uanfala: Pinging current participants to let them know of the 3 new redirects have been added to the nomination in the event their votes need to be adjusted. (Thanks Uanfala for pointing out the existence of these redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Algebra 3 (but keep/retarget others per my amended original comment above). Algebra 3 is not mentioned at target, and has only some passing mentions elsewhere on enwiki, usually in references. Pedagogically, Algebra III is probably equivalent to precalculus in the U.S., but is at best a much less common synonym. Unless a mention can be added, deletion seems best. Moreover, Algebra III does not exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Algebra 3, not mentioned and per Mdewman6. A7V2 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Algebra 3, per Mdewman6 and A7V2. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all, confusing. I took a course in "Algebra 1" at a German university and it was mostly Galois theory. Failing that, redirect to algebra, which mentions most of the things that "Algebra 1" can mean. —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- British universities also have "Algebra 1" classes referring to algebraic structures like fields and rings: Algebra 1 at Warwick. I don't think the University of Warwick should be discussed at Mathematics education in the United States, but I do think the target of Algebra 1 should contain information about things covered in Warwick's Algebra 1 course. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Katherine Agapay
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14#Katherine Agapay
Sexual activity
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#Sexual activity
Eray Erdoğan
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#Eray Erdoğan
Independientes
Let me go to the house of the Father.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#Let me go to the house of the Father.
Kawasockie
- Kawasockie → Kawasaki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I could judge this as an implausible typo. Also, user has a history of creating redirects that were deleted for being implausible typos or violating WP:FORRED. Engr. Smitty Werben 21:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's findings --Lenticel (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Plausible phonetic typo. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Yes, but then, should we also have redirects like Kawasokki or Kawasocky? We could have endless redirects for every possible misspelling, like "Eurpe" for Europe. Heavy Water (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water: See WP:PANDORA: It's an argument made at WP:RFD sometimes, but also an argument that usually is not supported since it deals with hypotheticals. In other words, since this redirect exists, it is harmless, and the odds that such a redirect will encourage the creation of other such redirects are both incredibly low ... but if other redirects are created, they would each be dealt with individually. (Also, it's not like this redirect is spelled in a slanderous way or anything like that, like "Kawasockittooya".) Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Yes, but then, should we also have redirects like Kawasokki or Kawasocky? We could have endless redirects for every possible misspelling, like "Eurpe" for Europe. Heavy Water (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible misspelling. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See reply to Steel1943 above, its existence is an abuse of the redirect policy. Heavy Water (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirects should not be there to replace the WP search engine. Or brain. — kashmīrī TALK 09:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - There's no need to guess at hypothetical spellings when we can look them up to see if there's any evidence of actual use. I did a quick search for "
kawasockie
", "kawasockie
", and "kawasokki
" on Google. Only the first two turned up relevant results; most were confined to a small handful of old posts on forums, all referring to Kawasaki motorcycles and engines. However, "kawasockie
" also turned up a PDF of a 1976 edition of the Wright State Guardian, a newspaper, which includes a classified ad for a "kawasockie" motorcycle. This suggests that it may be plausible, albiet uncommon. (It could just be a humourous deliberate misspelling or in-joke among enthusiasts though, like misspelling dog as doge in memes; the scant uses I found didn't give much to go on beyond confirming that some usage exists.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)- Perhaps the strongest argument is that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=kawasockie&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 doesn't seem to bring up the redirect destination. At the same time, it's still a weak one, since WP:RPURPOSE says "likely misspellings" not "any verifiable misspellings". --Joy (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Deletesockie per Heavy Water and Kashmiri. Not mentioned in the target. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Presumed consensus
- Wikipedia:Presumed consensus → Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Is not a defined term. Should not be a defined term, as there are already an excessive number of terms for qualified consensus. The target does not define “presumed consensus”. I have just removed circular referencing that looked like a definition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Before this nomination, it had no incoming links. It had no pageviews during its month of existence, except for two on the day it was created. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Would you please provide a few of the excessive terms for qualified consensus (with links, if possible)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Andrewa/Consensus is consensus
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Types+of+consensus&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong consensus
- Clear consensus
- Rough consensus
- Weak consensus
- Silent consensus
- Implied consensus
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm thinking that "presumed" consensus is the same as "implicit" and "silent" consensus. Are you in favor of eliminating wp:IMPLICIT as well? Or, perhaps, should you and I join forces, pick a preferred term (I like implied consensus), and do our best to replace the other two terms with that term? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t care for WP:IMPLICIT either. It’s harder to delete now, now that it has a handful of uses and gets a pageview every four days. Creating multiple shortcuts for the one section that already has recommended shortcuts in the WP:LINKBOX hinders, not helps, discussions. I think Wikipedia should avoid creation of terms of art, as they become a jargon and a barrier to newcomers. It’s better to use words for what they mean. “Silent” has a pseudo special meaning as the first word of the respected supplement-essay WP:Silence and consensus, but fortunately, “silent consensus” is more awkward than impressive.
- I don’t think either term is worth bluelinking, unless you do it by writing an essay. I think it is no so helpful, and sometime unhelpful, to make a term as a redirect to a policy section that doesn’t really elaborate on the meaning of the term. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- So for you the goal is not to reduce terms but to eliminate them altogether - to have no term for the consensus that arises from silence. Do I have that right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm thinking that "presumed" consensus is the same as "implicit" and "silent" consensus. Are you in favor of eliminating wp:IMPLICIT as well? Or, perhaps, should you and I join forces, pick a preferred term (I like implied consensus), and do our best to replace the other two terms with that term? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A redirect does not create a defined term. The term "presumed consensus" is in use and the redirect to wp:EDITCON helps editors unfamiliar the phrase to find the meaning when they type WP:PRESUMED CONSENSUS into the search box. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- If the target has always piped "Presumed consensus" to WP:Silence and consensus, then shouldn't that be the proposed target? Jay 💬 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Berbers in Sudan
- Berbers in Sudan → Berbers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Proposed deletion, as Berbers have never lived in Sudan. Munfarid1 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Note that "Sudan" is also the name of a region that is much larger than the present country of that name. The geography of that region has some minor overlaps with the homeland of the Tuareg people, who are themselves classified as Berber. (Compare the maps at Tuareg people and Sudan (region).) I'm not sure how to apply that to this redirect discussion, as there is a minor connection but with several degrees of separation. I do find the search term to be unlikely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep due to the minor overlaps between the Tuareg people and Berber as explained above. CycloneYoris talk! 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as misleading and unhelpful. If it is the Tuareg people who are the subject, then that should have been the redirect, but there is no indication of Sudan at that article. No mention of Berbers at Sudan (region). Sudan talks about Tunjur people who were Arabised Berbers, but there is no mention of Berbers at Tunjur people. Jay 💬 18:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no mention of the region Sudan or the Tuareg in the redirect, but only Berbers and Sudan. This is misleading to anyone who comes across this redirect, for example when searching for Sudan. IMHO, there is no advantage to keeping misleading information. That's why I started this proposal. Munfarid1 (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No affinity for specific country. MusiBedrock (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Tafseer-e-Daryabadi
- Tafseer-e-Daryabadi → Tafseer-e-Majidi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I'm not sure if this is a plausible search term as it seems to be part of the title of a book and part of the author's name. MB 05:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless and unambiguous. CycloneYoris talk! 18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep unless it is wrong. The same applies to the current target title Tafseer-e-Majidi which also is part title of a book and part author's name. The article doesn't say who gave it that title, and I don't know why the article is at that title. Jay 💬 17:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Otome chic
- Otome chic → Otomechikku (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in page; as far as I can tell the style isn't called that and "chikku" has no relation to "chic". Rusalkii (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, "chic" is a misinterpretation - "-chikku" is a katakanization of the English "-tic" (as in "dramatic").--AlexandraIDV 09:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- Keep as a plausible alternate spelling of the subject. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Confusing search term. Someone without basic knowledge of the Japanese language would not be able to decipher this. CycloneYoris talk! 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't see how it is a plausible alternate spelling. An external search only brings up a song by Oresama for which we don't have an article. Jay 💬 17:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Foster (2023 film)
StudentBusinesses.com
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#StudentBusinesses.com
Template:Stay focused
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#Template:Stay focused
Kt faber
Suit-kovia
Hydra Siberian Facility
- Hydra Siberian Facility → Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Hydra Siberian Facility (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Maveth (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. planet) → Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Maveth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Captain America Exhibit → Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Plot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Captain America Museum Exhibit → Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Plot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Asgardian actors → Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Asgard (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Warsong (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Warsong (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These used to point to sections on Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but those sections have since be removed due to notability and WP:FANCRUFT/WP:LISTCRUFT concerns. The current targets no longer mention the redirect title, so the redirects are useless per WP:RDELETE#D8. All incoming links have been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- As follows:
- Hydra Siberian Facility is mentioned at the target, against Avengers Civil War which is a redirect to Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Civil War which would be a better target.
- Maveth (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. planet) - retarget to Maveth
- Captain America Exhibit - refine to Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Marketing which mentions
a Smithsonian-type exhibit showing Captain America and the Howling Commandos from Captain America: The First Avenger.
- Captain America Museum Exhibit - same as Captain America Exhibit
- Asgardian actors -
retarget to Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Asgardians which is the same target as Asgardians (Marvel Cinematic Universe)retarget to Asgardians (Marvel Comics)#Other media or delete - Warsong (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - delete
- Jay 💬 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jay: What purpose would these redirects serve? How would they be helpful to readers or benefit them in any way? It is highly, highly unlikely for anyone to search for these terms, and the redirects will never be used as bluelinks. Understand that these are in reference to trivial places, events, and things that appeared in one or two scenes of a movie. The sole purpose of the redirects was so we could bluelink to their sections on the Features list article, but that is no longer a fuctionality. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they were initially used to link to their section titles, but now they have to be discussed on the the merits of their own titles. I agree [1] is trivial. In [5], I'm not sure who "actors" refer to. Jay 💬 05:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- [1] is the name of the fictional place where Iron Man and Captain America fought for about ten minutes in Captain America: Civil War. [2] is a fictional planet that appeared in two episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. [3] and [4] refer to a fictional Smithsonian exhibit that was in ten minutes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and five minutes of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. [5] refers to a group of fictional actors who have three-minute cameos in Thor: Ragnarok and Thor: Love and Thunder. [6] is a winged horse that shows up for 30 seconds in Avengers: Endgame and a couple minutes of Thor: Love and Thunder. As you can see, all trivial and minor objects whose redirects' sole purpose was for linking. We don't go around creating redirects to every item and place that pops up in a movie for no reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- My suggested target for [2] is the title of the episode that takes its name from the planet. The planet may be fictional, but filming for for the planet was real as mentioned at Maveth#Filming. [3] and [4] wee also the actual booths during the Comic Con as mentioned in my suggested target. Thanks for clarifying [5], I have struck off the earlier, but am fine with delete also for that. Jay 💬 07:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but to reiterate:
What purpose would these redirects serve? How would they be helpful to readers or benefit them in any way?
To aid searching? No, not likely. To be used as bluelinks? Probably not. For accidental linking? No, these aren't plausible alternate names of any article. To avoid leaving behind redlinks? All incoming links have been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)- Yes, for searching. These used to be sections once and are now reduced to mentions. Why do you think readers will stop looking these up? Jay 💬 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because they're trivial, which was the whole reason they were taken off the list in the first place. Readers will not be looking for these terms on Wikipedia, there's an MCU fan wiki on Fandom for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you are looking for a favourable outcome of this RfD, you may have to rephrase the nomination, which is all about the targets - deleted sections, no mentions (which I showed is incorrect for one), WP:RD#8, and which is why I brought up alternate targets. Now that you looking back at the redirect titles - triviality and searchability, the discussion will change to page views, what readers are looking for etc., not just for me, but also other participants of this discussion. Jay 💬 06:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because they're trivial, which was the whole reason they were taken off the list in the first place. Readers will not be looking for these terms on Wikipedia, there's an MCU fan wiki on Fandom for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, for searching. These used to be sections once and are now reduced to mentions. Why do you think readers will stop looking these up? Jay 💬 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but to reiterate:
- My suggested target for [2] is the title of the episode that takes its name from the planet. The planet may be fictional, but filming for for the planet was real as mentioned at Maveth#Filming. [3] and [4] wee also the actual booths during the Comic Con as mentioned in my suggested target. Thanks for clarifying [5], I have struck off the earlier, but am fine with delete also for that. Jay 💬 07:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- [1] is the name of the fictional place where Iron Man and Captain America fought for about ten minutes in Captain America: Civil War. [2] is a fictional planet that appeared in two episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. [3] and [4] refer to a fictional Smithsonian exhibit that was in ten minutes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and five minutes of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. [5] refers to a group of fictional actors who have three-minute cameos in Thor: Ragnarok and Thor: Love and Thunder. [6] is a winged horse that shows up for 30 seconds in Avengers: Endgame and a couple minutes of Thor: Love and Thunder. As you can see, all trivial and minor objects whose redirects' sole purpose was for linking. We don't go around creating redirects to every item and place that pops up in a movie for no reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they were initially used to link to their section titles, but now they have to be discussed on the the merits of their own titles. I agree [1] is trivial. In [5], I'm not sure who "actors" refer to. Jay 💬 05:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jay: What purpose would these redirects serve? How would they be helpful to readers or benefit them in any way? It is highly, highly unlikely for anyone to search for these terms, and the redirects will never be used as bluelinks. Understand that these are in reference to trivial places, events, and things that appeared in one or two scenes of a movie. The sole purpose of the redirects was so we could bluelink to their sections on the Features list article, but that is no longer a fuctionality. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
January 5
KN (car)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13#KN (car)
Sardinops agax sagax
Smartmusic
- Smartmusic → Scorewriter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in target. Seaching indicates there is a software program called Smartmusic that is a music practice tool, but that is different than Scorewriter. There is a mention of software by this name in Jim Walker (flautist), so it could be targeted there, but that does not appear the be more well known product. MB 01:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - creating accompaniment files for SmartMusic is mentioned in the Finale documentation here. It appears in the deletion logs, here. Looks like it was last deleted in 2012 due to being too much like an advertisement. I suggest that notability could be re-assessed (based on some idea of market share, discussion in appropriate music and education forums, appearance in publications, press, etc.), and another attempt could be made at creating an objective NPOV stub article at SmartMusic (and redirect Smartmusic to that). — Jon (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If someone is up for cleaning it, we can request Fastily to draftify SmartMusic deleted in 2012. Jay 💬 03:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Jim Walker (flautist). Though, the mention there is very short so I am not too sure if should be done. If the SmartMusic draft gets accepted, it can be retargeted there. Carpimaps (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Template substitution
- Template substitution → Substitution (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not what the target disambiguation page is about at all. Delete due to this (preferred option) or weak retarget to Wikipedia:Substitution Template processor as the most likely intended target (not preferred since it would make the nominated redirect a WP:XNR). Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to
Wikipedia:Substitution; this would be helpful for newer editorsTemplate processor per 59.149.117.119 as an {{R from related topic}}. Duckmather (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC); edited 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC) - Delete or weak retarget to template processor. The concept of template substitution is not Mediawiki-exclusive, but is found in multiple programming and markup languages [49]. An XNR would be both unhelpful (misdirecting readers who are trying to find e.g. C++ template substitution) and unnecessary (understanding namespaces is a very basic threshold level of editing competence, something that editors should understand long before they start worrying about which templates need to be substituted). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This term has only 2 mentions in Enwiki and Search would find them. Certainly do not create an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Too vague term, no particular mentions. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that 59.149.117.119 has a point. I've amended my !vote accordingly. Duckmather (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Westlake Middle School
- Westlake Middle School → Thornwood, New York#Education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There are multiple schools with this name, including in California (List of Oakland, California middle schools), in Illinois (Glenbard Township High School District 87), in Pennsylvania (Millcreek Township School District), and in Colorado (Adams 12 Five Star Schools). None of them seem to be notable, and I see no reason to favor the New York school over the others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - with a new dab page called "Westlake Middle School" that offers blue links to each school or its district. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I voted to "disambiguate" above, but if that prevents a consensus I can support deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see a good reason to disambiguate between list entries, we should let search do its job here. Note that there is an article in the history, but I don't think it is necessary to restore as it is unreferenced, but happy to support that if others feel it is necessary. A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Largest Contentful Paint
- Largest Contentful Paint → Web performance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- First Contentful Paint → Web performance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- First Paint → Web performance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in target. Searching indicates this is "a Google user experience metric that became a ranking factor in 2021." The time to render the largest image of a webpage or something like that. It is related to Web performance, but apparently Google specific. Delete unless content is added somewhere. (same for the second two) MB 06:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- AFAIK, these are fairly well adopted across the industry. Ways of measuring these metrics are included inside React, NextJS (there are modules available for integration with Vue/Nuxt.js etc) and even Wikimedia tracks/tries to track these values. While yes these metrics are heavily pushed by Google (and Google Chrome), my understanding is that they are somewhat used in the industry and there would be a benefit in having these redirect to Web Performance. Sohom Datta (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: These should in theory be mentioned at Web performance as indicated above they are pretty notable metrics for checking webpages and are relatively important when it comes to SEO and UX, but they seem to not be mentioned anywhere really. I feel odd voting to delete, but they are totally unmentioned. If mention is added to article, then keep. TartarTorte 21:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'll add it in the next few days. My idea would be to add a new heading of metrics and then talk about these metrics that are used in the industry. Sohom Datta (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sohom data: just wanted to let you know that nominations at RFD are listed for a minimum of 7 days, after which a closer is allowed to make a decision on the redirects. Jay 💬 06:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll add it in the next few days. My idea would be to add a new heading of metrics and then talk about these metrics that are used in the industry. Sohom Datta (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- @Jay Thanks for this, I was unaware of this time limit. I have also updated the article with the content, @MB, @TartarTorte let me know if whatever I have written at Web performance fulfills the specification for a redirect. Sohom Datta (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Refine all to Web performance#Metrics, the new section added by Sohom. Jay 💬 03:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Universidad del Sur de Oregón
2023 in tennis
Saladin Campaign
Co-dominance (reptiles)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Co-dominance (reptiles)
Houston Havoc
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Houston Havoc
Wanderlust (Bjoerk)
- Wanderlust (Bjoerk) → Volta (album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Hunter (Bjoerk song) → Hunter (Björk song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- I Miss You (Bjoerk song) → I Miss You (Björk song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Family Tree (Bjoerk album) → Family Tree (Björk album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Who is It (Bjoerk song) → Who Is It (Björk song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Inside Bjoerk → Inside Björk (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Vessel (Bjoerk DVD) → Vessel (video) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Bjoerk discography → Björk discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Discography of Bjoerk → Björk discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Bjoerk's Greatest Hits → Greatest Hits (Björk album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Bjoerk (book) → Björk (book) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Debut (Bjoerk) → Debut (Björk album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of Bjoerk tours → List of Björk concert tours (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
See this recent discussion: [50]. "Bjoerk" has been determined to be an unlikely misspelling of the musician's name, and according to the participants in that discussion, many old redirects assuming this misspelling need to be cleaned up. Several have been bundled into this nomination. Also note that several of these, such as "Debut (Bjoerk)", don't follow article naming conventions even if the misspelling were valid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, unlikely misspelling. What about Bjoerk itself? It is just as unlikely. Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also in that previous discussion at [51], you will see that the simple "Bjoerk" pointing to the musician's article has a much more complex redirect history. I'm in favor of whacking that one too, but will let this present conversation run its course. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all I do not see how this is an unlikely misspelling. It is plausible based on the phonetic pronunciation of the artist's name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all consistent with the previous RfD, as unlikely search terms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
By-wire
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#By-wire
Arab Armenians
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Arab Armenians
Twittergate
- Twittergate → Anthony Weiner sexting scandals (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Recently been used to refer to Twitter Files Investigation (which is currently up for deletion, but the topic is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia) ([52]). So I can imagine users searching for the term for that topic. Perhaps at least a hatnote if not a dab page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is far more important because it's a detailed case of a conspiracy-like outcome from a non-conspiracy juxtaposition of events.
- "#twittergate" very clearly shows how the statistical leaning of tech workers and age groups towards one or the other political party can lead to real-world impacts like moderation imbalance that snowball into $44Bn philanthropic grand gestures. Unfairness accusations like this come up all the time on all social media platforms and very few of these accusations have this level of investigation (or impact) to shine light on what is happening. Losing this from wikipedia would be beyond merely tragic.
- Objectively, tech workers are pro-liberal and High-earning positions like executives are pro-GOP due to economic special interest. (One quick-glance visualized data set but I could, of course, flood you with research supporting this key statement: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ ).
- I think this page needs to be kept and heavily edited and expanded because the IQ/Education impact in employment on politics is historically impactful and culturally highly relevant. If I felt I was worthy of the task, I'd take it on myself. Unfortunately I do data science, not writing so I'd be starting from no experience. Skyleach (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt if it can be converted to a dab. There is no mention of twittergate in any article of enwiki. External search also brings up a 2009 German election incident. Jay 💬 02:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Jay. Let Wikipedia's search results help readers find what they are looking for, considering a dab would not make sense in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: late rally for delete means this one's going to a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Dabification, the Musk scandal is the main topic in searches at the moment, but it's too soon to declare it the primary topic. Rusalkii (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ukrainian partisans
- Ukrainian partisans → Ukrainian Insurgent Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Ukrainian resistance during World War II → Ukrainian Insurgent Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A WP:GOOGLE search for "Ukrainian partisans" largely shows pages about Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe this redirect should be retargeted to that page. The UPA was not the only Ukrainian partisan or "resistance" movement during World War II, there was also a pro-Soviet partisan movement (see Soviet partisans § Ukraine). I believe this redirect could be turned into a disambiguation page. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I concur. Dab this. But I'd prefer to redirect the partisans to the dab page too. Let's avoid too much recentism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree DAB is best solution, as more than one possible target. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like consensus has formed around DAB at Ukrainian partisans so far, but no one has expressed much opinion on what to do with Ukrainian resistance during World War II.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 20:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus, Bobfrombrockley, and Jay: Just to clarify, do y'all only support creating the DAB at Ukrainian partisans, or also support redirecting Ukrainian resistance during World War II to that DAB? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's tougher; but yes. Polish resistance during World War II doesn't redirect to the dominant force (AK) but to an article explaining various faction, so if Ukrainie doesn't have such an article, dab will do for now. Btw, there's a related dab at Ukrainian resistance (compare Polish resistance). PS. Polish partisans redirects to Leśni and probabl needs a RfD too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Since Ukrainian resistance during World War II is one of the entries at Ukrainian resistance, this entry leading the reader to a dab about partisans will be confusing, unless the lead of the Ukrainian partisans dab mentions a word or two about "resistance". Jay 💬 05:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- See below comment. Jay 💬 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's tougher; but yes. Polish resistance during World War II doesn't redirect to the dominant force (AK) but to an article explaining various faction, so if Ukrainie doesn't have such an article, dab will do for now. Btw, there's a related dab at Ukrainian resistance (compare Polish resistance). PS. Polish partisans redirects to Leśni and probabl needs a RfD too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Is this discussion still open? Stara Marusya (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stara Marusya, yes it is. TartarTorte 20:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I support the disambiguation option. Stara Marusya (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps 'Ukrainian resistance during World War II' should be another separate and shorter disambiguation page.Stara Marusya (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stara Marusya: what will it have? If it's only two entries, I believe the current target will be the primary topic, and we can hatnote the Soviet partisans from there. Jay 💬 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stara Marusya, yes it is. TartarTorte 20:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Taihoku County
- Taihoku County → New Taipei City#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Taipei County was established after Japanese rule so the Japanese pronunciation Taihoku is not in its native language. (In Japanese era it was part of Taihoku Prefecture instead of Taihoku County.) Konno Yumeto 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a plausible enough search term, but I'm neutral between keeping at current target which I think is more likely to explain the confusion, and retargeting to Taihoku Prefecture which is perhaps more likely what someone searching this is actually looking for (noting of course that it is linked in the relevant section of the current target). A7V2 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and Taihoku Prefecture talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Yumeto: I could not understand the nomination. Is Taihoku County a real name used by Japan either in the past or present? Was it used to refer to Taipei County from 1946 to 2010? Is your suggestion to retarget the redirect to Taihoku Prefecture? If so, why? Or is your suggestion to delete as not a proper name? Jay 💬 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- before 1945: part of Taihoku Prefecture, Taiwan, Japan. There was no Taihoku County.
- 1945 to 2010: Taipei County, Taiwan, Republic of China. It was not called Taihoku County since Japanese language was not used.
- 2010 to present: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC
- So my suggestion is deletion. Konno Yumeto 04:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- If "Taihoku County" was not a real name, how is it that multiple books have mention of it? And are they referring to the county or the prefecture? Jay 💬 06:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- From the few books in the search that use the phrase, it seems they are referring to some pre-1920 Japanese political divisions, perhaps Taihoku ken (zh:臺北縣 (日治時期)) or Taihoku chō (ja:台北庁, zh:臺北廳). Hard for me to tell if it's one or both. The current target seems reasonable, or History of Taipei#Japanese rule and leadership seems about equally reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's Taihoku ken / Taibei Xian (zh:臺北縣 (日治時期)). The dates match better: this source refers to the 30th year of Meiji (1897) and this source mentions 1895. According to the zh.wikipedia articles, Taihoku ken existed 1895–1901 while Taihoku chō was established in 1901. Also, the Chinese word 縣 is typically translated as "county" in English. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Loophole (1981 film)/Archive
- Loophole (1981 film)/Archive → Loophole (1981 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Was merged into the target in 2010. I don't see any obvious redlinks to move this to, so would suggest move without redirect to Talk:Loophole (1981 film)/Attribution/1 or suchlike, and tag with {{parallel version}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Move without redirect to the proposed target above per nom. CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- As this was not a fork that was created for discussion, can this remain in mainspace instead of talk space? Maybe move to something like Loophole (British film) or Loophole 1981 film or similar? Jay 💬 02:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion of Jay's suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Jamie Peacock (actress)
- Jamie Peacock (actress) → Kayzie Rogers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No evidence put forward that this is a suitable redirect - not mentioned in article. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Jamie Peacock appears to have been a pseudonym of Kayzie Rogers. See [53]] and [54] (see entry for Super Smash Bros Ultimate). Not sure if this can be verified by reliable sources, a quick look didn't turn any up but there are a lot of questionable ones all saying the same thing (eg [55], [56] etc). A7V2 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, my concern is that the sources discussing this are generally not reliable or user-generated and in turn could well be referencing each other. That isn't to say it's not true, but I can't find anything reliable that associates the alias to the individual in question. Usually we'd consider a pseudonym to be an acceptable redirect but in the absence of anything that discusses this as being a notable pseudonym (or even just something reliable that validates it conclusively), i'd probably lean on deleting. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Two more sites: Amazon page selling a Pokemon DVD and a looper.com article. Looper's fact checking policy says they strive to ensure accuracy. Also note we have another page Jamie Peacock (voice actor) which was merged to the same target in 2006. Jay 💬 11:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of additional evidence provided by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- Also, at Talk:Kayzie Rogers#I am Kayzie Rogers, User:KZRogers said that she had to make COI edits because the article was turning out to be inaccurate. Jamie Peacock was mentioned as an alternate name at this edit which was commented as
I have added back my original biography. Yesterday I made some edits to correct inaccuracies by someone who thinks they know my life better than I do. Then my whole bio was gutted. The person who gutted it is JJMC89. Thank you. Kayzie Rogers.
I have linked JJMC89's name only out of courtesy :) Jay 💬 03:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- The COI edits were notified at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Kayzie Rogers, but did not see further action. I have re-added Jamie Peacock to the target using the looper.com reference, and will see if it sticks. Jay 💬 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, at Talk:Kayzie Rogers#I am Kayzie Rogers, User:KZRogers said that she had to make COI edits because the article was turning out to be inaccurate. Jamie Peacock was mentioned as an alternate name at this edit which was commented as
Line 34 (Shenzhen Metro)
MC EU TV
Lawa, Chakwal
Paula Räikkönen
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Paula Räikkönen
Speaker of the House
January 4
Thien Hau Temple (Ho Chi Minh City)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Thien Hau Temple (Ho Chi Minh City)
List of Jedi survivors of Order 66
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#List of Jedi survivors of Order 66
Ego and Non-Ego
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Ego and Non-Ego
Education history 1
History teacher
School observation
Children's behavior problems
List of projects for use in physics education
Theory of education
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Theory of education
Paideutics
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Paideutics
Education studies
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Education studies
Mathematics education effects on the economy of the United States
Algebra II/Trigonometry
Algebra I
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Algebra I
Trivia (education)
Divine philosophy
God Talk
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#God Talk
Uncaused cause & Uncaused causer
Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy
Knook (chess)
Ginseng coffee
Vinkov
Neera Arya
Ring of regular functions
- Ring of regular functions → Affine variety (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Regular function redirects to Morphism of algebraic varieties. While this redirect is linked there (section "Regular functions"), the concept is a lot more general than the coordinate ring (also linked there and also redirecting to Affine variety), so I suggest it be redirected to the morphism article instead. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- This one seems tricky. The problem is that the morphism article doesn’t really discuss the ring of regular functions (maybe they should?). Also, the ring of regular functions on a variety is almost always used when the variety is affine. So although the concept is more general (as you pointed out), the current redirect may be ok; at least there is no better target right now as it seems. —- Taku (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- By the way, the space of the global sections of the structure sheaf of a scheme is called the affine ring of the scheme, which is the same as the ring of regular functions on it when the scheme is a variety. The affine ring currently redirects to glossary of commutative algebra. I don’t know the scheme sense is covered elsewhere. —- Taku (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Talk:Affine ring, Talk:Regular function, and Talk:Morphism of algebraic varieties for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and retarget Regular function to Affine variety. Firstly, it is silly to redirect a concept concerning a single variety to an article about relations between two varieties. Secondly, the definition in Morphism of algebraic varieties ("A morphism from an algebraic variety to the affine line is also called a regular function") is incorrect and should be written "The morphisms from an algebraic variety to the affine line can be identified to the regular functions" (the identification is clear from the case in section "Definition" of this article). Thirdly, is not clearly explained in either article why a "regular function" is called a "function" (it is a function that maps the closed points of the variety to the ground field; it is regular, since its domain is the whole variety). However it is much more natural to provide this explanation in Affine variety than in Morphism of algebraic varieties (the concept of a regular function predates from more than 50 years the concept of morphisms). D.Lazard (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- For an opinion on the Regular function redirect suggestion, pinging Taku as the editor who had blanked and redirected Regular function to Morphism of algebraic varieties. Jay 💬 07:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Saridharam
January 3
Tory party
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Tory party
Life of Christ
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Life of Christ
Architecture of Egypt
Suzmites
- Suzmites → Pteridinium (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No reference in target article and a Google search didn't turn this up as an alternative name. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Suzmites is noted as a junior synonym of Onegia in The list of Ediacaran genera. Onegia is a synonym of Pteridinium, so if I were to redirect it to Suzmites it would have a double redirect. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Rugoconites Tenuirugosus It would help considerably if you could cite some reliable external sources which support your assertion. The Wikipedia page you named does not exist either. I would expect any page which is the subject of a WP:REDIRECT to mention any synonym and to cite a good, up-to-date source to substantiate that synonymy. None of us are mind-readers, nor experts in Ediacaran synonymy. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- List of Ediacaran genera is what I wanted to say. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, if you're looking to know why I made those redirects check the page. Multiple taxa are listed as synonyms of already existing taxa (or synonyms of synonyms of already existing taxa in the case of Suzmites). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Rugoconites Tenuirugosus It would help considerably if you could cite some reliable external sources which support your assertion. The Wikipedia page you named does not exist either. I would expect any page which is the subject of a WP:REDIRECT to mention any synonym and to cite a good, up-to-date source to substantiate that synonymy. None of us are mind-readers, nor experts in Ediacaran synonymy. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No source is provided to establish that Suzmites is treated as a synonym of Onegia (although there is a source at Pteridinium that treats Onegia as a synonym of Pteridinium). Suzmites is listed at List of Ediacaran genera, where it is claimed to be a synonym of Onegia, but there is no source. There is another redirect for a supposed synonym of Onegia being discussed (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_8#Archangelia); the sources cited for that one in List of Ediacaran genera don't actually mention it at all. List of Ediacaran genera needs cleanup and verification of sources; we can't rely on statements about synonymy made there. Plantdrew (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I had added a {{Citation needed}} against that. Jay 💬 07:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Plantdrew. Unless someone adds a reliable source to the list article in order to support the existence of this redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 14:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia
The toilet
Yarra Bend
Hampton Primary School
Karin Futo
Cyberden
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Cyberden
Inceptor
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Inceptor
Moemar
Current European Car of the Year
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Russian Invasion of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Russian invasion of ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Russian Invasion Of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24 § Russian invasion of Ukraine – retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7 § Russian invasion of Ukraine – retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Requested move 15 December 2022 – (requested move) redirect not reversed
Given that recent consensus decided that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", I don't think it makes sense that that term should redirect there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, which disambiguates this ambigous term. That was my (prevailing) opinion when I started the first RfD, my (not prevailing) opinion in response to the second one, and my (at least partly prevailing) opinion at the RM. Until a year ago "Russian invasion of Ukraine" primarily referred to the Russo-Ukrainian War as a whole (and was this redirect's target till I boldly retargeted it a month before the full invasion). Prior to that, it might have referred to any number of 20th-century military actions by the USSR or Russian SFSR. And so on. Across three previous discussions, I haven't seen anyone argue that the current invasion is, long-term, the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Rather, people have made per se recentist arguments that it's the best-known invasion and then hand-waved from there to "obvious primary topic" or such. It's not the obvious primary topic. If it is the primary topic, I'd really like to see someone explain why in a manner that doesn't boil down to "it's the one that's currently happening". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine per consensus at recent RM that 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine is not the primary topic for this. A7V2 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I've added some redirects which differ in capitalisation only since they should all target the same place. I did not add Russia invaded Ukraine which also targets 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, though perhaps someone should. A7V2 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (I did not vote! in the recent RM though I did make a general comment regarding WP:DETCON and WP:NHC and that WP:AT was the prevailing WP:P&G) The close did not find that
that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Primary topic was only specifically raised by the Nom and two others (who had opposing views). Editors gave opinions regarding other invasions but these were not made within the context of WP:P&G or evidence but tended to argue opinions. IMHO (and quoting from WP:NHC, most arguments offered were irrelevant andflatly contradict established policy
- specifically WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT (a policy), to which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a guideline) specifically defers. WP:TITLEDAB states:... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.
The policy is based on there being an actual and not a perceived or potential conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict between Russian invasion of Ukraine and any other Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, we are specifically told touse only as much additional detail as necessary.
Because there is no actual conflict in titles, preceding with year (eg 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine)flatly contradict[s] established policy
. I am not here to relitigate the RM but the prevailing policy is directly related to this discussion. Keeping that in mind, what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and what is the evidence? Of the invasions/occupations listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine immediately post the Russian revolution, average daily page views are less than 40 (and typically much less).[57][58][59][60] Looking at the two other events listed under the Russo-Ukrainian War and the long term results from before the 2022 invasion: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has about 2,000 page views per day;[61] and, War in Donbas has about 2,500.[62] WP:RECENTISM was raised during the RM in that the 2022 invasion overshadows earlier events. After a year, average daily page views are tending to flatten at somewhere between 40,000-50,000. At an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the other two relatively recent events, that is a lot of recentism to overcome. What weight do we give recentism? That can only be considered by comparison of the global ramifications and consequently, how these will be viewed comparatively in the future once the dust has settled. While WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL ... The global reaction and direct global ramifications (particularly economic), demonstratively far exceed the other events - even if this is a somewhat qualitative metric. IMHO, the weight to be given recentism is not so significant to change the result from present evidence. Even for these other events that may be termed invasions, this is not part of their WP:COMMONNAME, given common name is the primary criteria for determining an article title. Bottom line: actual evidence assessed against the prevailing WP:P&G supports keeping this as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)- I do think that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic (I raised the RM, after all)—this RfD is because of the outcome: most !votes to oppose in the RM cited potential confusion with other invasions of Ukraine (the 2014 invasion of Crimea in particular). As I directly asked for comments about whether it was the primary topic by requesting a move, and people seemed to agree that it was not the primary topic,[a] I went forward with the RfD. I don't really think this RfD should happen, but I do think that given the outcome of the RM, it would be silly not to bring up the redirect, as it seems to go against the consensus just established: that a large portion of people looking for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" would be brought to a page that differs from what they were looking for. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- DecafPotato, I know where you stand but the problem with the argument you would italicise is that it is made without evidence to support such an assertion. And if a reader does happen to be looking for something else, that is why we have a dab hat note at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important to consider here that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partially disambiguated title ("Russian" disambiguating a base title of "Invasion of Ukraine", which was ruled ambiguous at both previous RfDs). The standard for PRIMARYTOPIC status for such titles is higher than for regular PTOPIC considerations, as readers generally expect a disambiguator to fully disambiguate. So it's not just whether the current invasion is the one people are reading about the most (which it obviously will be, as it's ongoing), or even whether it's the one that's gotten the most global attention (which it probably is, although I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you think)—but whether it is so clearly the primary topic that we are justified in having an incompletely-disambiguated title redirect to it... Which is functionally the same proposition that was just rejected at RM. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- From WP:PDAB:
...PDABs can have primary topics, but that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator".
WP:PDABLIST is only listing articles that have parenthetic or comma disambiguation. The spirit and intent of the cited WP:P&G (including WP:INCOMPDAB) does not appear to apply to natural article titles - ie the assertion that"Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partially disambiguated title ("Russian" disambiguating a base title of "Invasion of Ukraine"
does not appear to hold water when compared against the cited WP:P&G. So, whilethe standard for PRIMARYTOPIC status for such titles is higher
, it does not appear to apply here. On the other hand, WP:TITLEDAB is quite explicit in the requirement,when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.
I was not arguing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because it hasit's the one that's gotten the most global attention
. Rather, I statedThe global reaction and direct global ramifications (particularly economic), demonstratively far exceed the other events
and,[it] can only be considered by comparison of the global ramifications and consequently, how these will be viewed comparatively in the future once the dust has settled.
This is equivalent to WP:10YT. The recent RM was largely based on unsubstantiated opinions which really didn't cite WP:P&G and which that are (largely) flately contradicted by established policy.[Is] it is so clearly the primary topic that we are justified in having [this title] redirect to it
? Unlike the previous RM, we now have actual evidence before us. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- From WP:PDAB:
- I think it's important to consider here that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partially disambiguated title ("Russian" disambiguating a base title of "Invasion of Ukraine", which was ruled ambiguous at both previous RfDs). The standard for PRIMARYTOPIC status for such titles is higher than for regular PTOPIC considerations, as readers generally expect a disambiguator to fully disambiguate. So it's not just whether the current invasion is the one people are reading about the most (which it obviously will be, as it's ongoing), or even whether it's the one that's gotten the most global attention (which it probably is, although I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you think)—but whether it is so clearly the primary topic that we are justified in having an incompletely-disambiguated title redirect to it... Which is functionally the same proposition that was just rejected at RM. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- DecafPotato, I know where you stand but the problem with the argument you would italicise is that it is made without evidence to support such an assertion. And if a reader does happen to be looking for something else, that is why we have a dab hat note at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I do think that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic (I raised the RM, after all)—this RfD is because of the outcome: most !votes to oppose in the RM cited potential confusion with other invasions of Ukraine (the 2014 invasion of Crimea in particular). As I directly asked for comments about whether it was the primary topic by requesting a move, and people seemed to agree that it was not the primary topic,[a] I went forward with the RfD. I don't really think this RfD should happen, but I do think that given the outcome of the RM, it would be silly not to bring up the redirect, as it seems to go against the consensus just established: that a large portion of people looking for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" would be brought to a page that differs from what they were looking for. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to the list article, as proposed. The delegation of this name to the February 24th invasion is WP:RECENTISM. An encyclopedic point of view of history keeps in mind that there were Russian invasions of Ukraine in 1659, 1708, 1775, 1918, 1919 (2×), 1920, 2014, and 2015. —Michael Z. 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ (albeit some comments just said that there were other invasions of Ukraine, that the invasion of Crimea and called me a Russian propagandist for suggesting that Crimea is rightfully Russian (I did not suggest that) and completely ignored things like the example of Invasion of Poland as the primary topic, but I digress, and then swarms of random redlink accounts with no comment as to their position)
- Keep - AfD is not the place to discuss redirects that should at least point somewhere. They should probably all point at a disambiguation page for the Russian invasions (and I support that redirect) but deletion is entirely inappropriate here Neonchameleon (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Neonchameleon: This is RfD, not AfD, and the proposal is to point to a disambiguating list; no one has suggested deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep current redirect. Sure thing, the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (correctly included to the list suggested as new target) was not a Russian invasion. Same with Khmelnytsky Uprising and some other events in the list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well sure, but that's because there haven't been enough invasions of Ukraine overall to justify a separate "List of Russian invasions and occupations of Ukraine". When redirecting to a page that disambiguates a term, it needn't be the case that every item on the page is something the redirect could refer to. After all, we might redirect an ambiguous term like Foo (album) to Foo (disambiguation), even if there are items on that page that aren't albums. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War. 2022 invasion is a part of Russo-Ukrainian War. Cryptopia (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)- Struck (as a discussion participant, not as an admin) per WP:GS/RUSUKR: Non-extendedconfirmed users may not participate in internal discussions about the Russo-Ukrainian War. No offense intended, Cryptopia. Happy editing elsewhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, a reader searching for one of those terms will almost certainly be looking for the current (closing in on a year-long) event. This may change in the future, but retargeting now is simply sending readers somewhere they aren't looking for. CMD (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine doesn't seem like a great target to me, because it includes a number of invasions by countries other than Russia. LittlePuppers (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The ongoing invasion is the WP:PTOPIC for this redirect, and it is going to be the thing that the vast majority of readers are searching for. It would serve our readers better for this to point to the ongoing invasion, which already contains a hatnote to the list of invasions. This is going to save people clicks relative to any other option, and I see no motivating reason to move this to target the dab page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Secular world
January 2
Quantity of electricity
Williamson System
Color graphics
- Color graphics → Computer graphics (computer science) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in target article. For this reason, it is unclear what subject this redirect is meant to identify. In addition, as a term without definition, this phrase came to considered rather vague, including describing color in graphics in general, not necessarily graphics in a computer sense. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Redirect seems rather vague, and there doesn't appear to be any plausible target for it. CycloneYoris talk! 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Probably retarget to Color Graphics Adapter the lead of which says it established a de facto computer display standard. So where else are color graphics used outside of the computer sense? Jay 💬 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The House of the Dead (vide game)
Template:WikiProject banner
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9#Template:WikiProject banner
Digix
USA 1994
Danger noodle
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9#Danger noodle
Crypto asset
- Crypto asset → Cryptocurrency (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Cryptoasset → Cryptocurrency (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think that crypto asset should not be redirected to cryptocurrency. Crypto asset includes non-fungible token (NFT) and NFT is a highly notable concepts. On the other hands, many scholarly articles describe crypto assets. Therefore we should have standalone article for crypto asset per Wikipedia:Notability. Cryptopia (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now as there are discussions about crypto assets in the target. I've no prejudice against the creation of a standalone article. --Lenticel (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep since NFTs are mentioned at the target. Perhaps there should be an article, but making this a redlink to encourage article creation would not be helpful here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Opinion We can restore this version to encourage article expansion. Cryptopia (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The merge to target happened per Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 2#Proposed merge from Crypto asset, and David Gerard had said
We can split the article out again if third-party RSes show up
. The latest restoration attempt two days back was reverted by Pppery who saidas far as I can tell the sources have not improved since the previous merge...
. Jay 💬 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)- yeah, the sources aren't here yet. The best encouragement to expansion will be sources sufficient to make a separate article worth the effort - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The merge to target happened per Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 2#Proposed merge from Crypto asset, and David Gerard had said
- Keep per others and expand the target, and/or create Draft:Crypto asset with content copied from the redirect's history. Jay 💬 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Facetious
Refined oil
- Refined oil → Edible oil refining (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Refined oil products → Petroleum product (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Products based on refined oil → Petroleum product (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Refined, bleached, and deodorized oil → Edible oil refining (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Physically refined oil → Edible oil refining (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Chemically refined oil → Edible oil refining (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Both petroleum oil and vegetable oil can be refined, so it shouldn't be assumed the "oil" refers to one or the other. Oil covers all types, but only mentions refining in passing. Oil refinery is only about petroleum, but that seems OK to me. Not sure about these six redirects though. MB 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Target 1, 2, 3 to to Petroleum product and use
{{hatnote|Several terms redirect here. For refining of edible oil, see Edible oil refining.}}
. Delete 4, 5, 6 because I can't see these terms used in either target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC) - Disambiguate 1 (Refined oil) and retarget 2, 3, 5, 6 to 1. Keep 4 since it doesn't make sense to bleach or deodorize petroleum. There are plenty of Google hits for each of these so no need to delete any of them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate/retarget/keep exactly as proposed by User:King of Hearts. Couldn't have said it better myself. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- King of Hearts, Mx. Granger, how do you propose to disambiguate 1 (Refined oil)? Should it have Petroleum product or Oil refinery? Note that Refined petroleum, Refined petroleum fuel and Refined gasoline all redirect to Oil refinery. Jay 💬 07:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which is better. I guess I would follow the example of those other redirects and link to Oil refinery, but I don't feel strongly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- While having Oil refinery will make it consistent, it will become a problem retargeting 2 and 3 to the dab since those redirects have "product" in the name, with their current targets appearing as better targets than the dab. Jay 💬 16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe we could include both links in the disambiguation page, each with its own line. That would probably be the most useful solution for readers. The current target for those two (Petroleum product) isn't very good, due to the ambiguity between different types of oil. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Drafted a dab at Refined oil. Jay 💬 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Looks reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Drafted a dab at Refined oil. Jay 💬 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe we could include both links in the disambiguation page, each with its own line. That would probably be the most useful solution for readers. The current target for those two (Petroleum product) isn't very good, due to the ambiguity between different types of oil. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- While having Oil refinery will make it consistent, it will become a problem retargeting 2 and 3 to the dab since those redirects have "product" in the name, with their current targets appearing as better targets than the dab. Jay 💬 16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which is better. I guess I would follow the example of those other redirects and link to Oil refinery, but I don't feel strongly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Brandon Roberts (musician)
- Brandon Roberts (musician) → A Day to Remember (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Musician-to-band redirect for a musician not named in the band's article to provide any context for why he redirects there. To be fair, at the time this was created his name was in the article with a claim that he was a very shortlived early member when the band was first formed but left before the band had actually attained any notability -- but that was later removed as unsourced and unsourceable, and the name has never returned to the article since. So there's no point in retaining this if its original purpose is impossible for us to verify. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note to closer (in case the outcome is to delete): the talk page lists 3 prior deletion discussions, none of which are for the musician, hence it may be moved back to Talk:Brandon Roberts. The talk page move may have happened when Tassedethe moved the corresponding page, probably as part of a disambiguation effort. Jay 💬 17:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- What may happen next is Brandon Roberts (American football) will be moved to Brandon Roberts, in which case the talk page's content can be copied over one of the existing talk pages. Jay 💬 17:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 05:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete using nom's rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as it seems it was never accurate. – The Grid (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Pera the Gate
Pseudoephedra
Qualified independent contractor
- Qualified independent contractor → Independent contracting in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No explanation of qualifications given at redirect, and qualifications may differ by country. An unhelpful redirect in its current form, probably best deleted but maybe retargeted if a suitable page exists. Gingermead (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the pre-BLAR content was related to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, but the BLAR was done to independent contractor. In the context of Medicare, this was also listed at the QIC dab which I have just removed. Jay 💬 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Kristne
Solangi
- Solangi → Solanki (clan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I cleared out an article here that was a duplicate of Solanki (clan), but I am not sure is this should instead redirect to the surname Solanki. There are notable people with the name, but they are currently not listed at that SIA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- This RfD is also linked to the outcome of Talk:Solanki#Requested move 17 December 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaundryPizza03, please propose a specific action to be taken.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)- @Legoktm: Retarget to Solanki or disambiguate, depending on the outcome of the RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the RM has been closed and the following changes have happened. The "Solanki" mentioned elsewhere at this RfD is now Solanki (name) and the RM discussion link is now Talk:Solanki (name)#Requested move 17 December 2022. What we now have at Solanki is a dab created today by ModernDayTrilobite. No change in my vote though. Jay 💬 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Legoktm: Retarget to Solanki or disambiguate, depending on the outcome of the RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- If Solangi is a historical name for Solanki, then this should be mentioned at some article. The pre-BLAR content says they are Muslim, whereas the current target suggests they are Hindus. Solanki has no mention of a name as Solangi, so that would be an incorrect target. External searches come up with "Solangi are not Solanki" suggesting this is controversial, probably because of caste or religion representations. Restore and discuss at AfD if there is no clarity. Jay 💬 07:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: "Solangi" seems like a plausible alternative spelling or misspelling of Solange. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
3D art
- 3D art → 3D computer graphics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Three dimensional art → Sculpture (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The target is not the only subject which could be considered "3D art". For example, "3D art" can also be created as a result of 3D printing, or even forms of art that do not require the use of technology. Steel1943 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dabify this can refer to many things like 3D painting, 3D modelling, and even sculptures. It is very ambigous right now RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 12:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate this term and retarget Three dimensional art (which currently redirects to Sculpture) to the disambiguation page. It doesn't make sense to WP:ASTONISH readers looking for 3-D art by redirecting them to a specific form. I'll also be adding the fully worded term to the discussion. Seed of コスモ (alternative account of Sonic678) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both unless someone can come up with an acceptable dab draft. This should be a broad concept article. There is also Three-dimensional art which redirects to Sculpture which may be bundled here. Note that 3D artist and 3D Artist redirect to 3D modeling. Jay 💬 11:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd forgotten to tag the "Three dimensional art" when I tagged it, so I'm tagging it here. I hope that'll help. Regards, SONIC678 03:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm Don't let's forget folks that 3D computer graphics only look 3D; they normally just appear on a screen in 2D. In art history any art that actually is physically 3D falls under sculpture, whether from a 3D printer etc or not. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all plus Three-dimensional art as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
December 31
Winter storm Goliath
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8#Winter storm Goliath
Social Surfing
Rubber Duck Entertainment (UK)
Catholics not in communion with Rome
- Catholics not in communion with Rome → Catholic Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I'm not too familiar with the subject of the target article, but I don't think this connection is correct and/or exclusive. For one, I do not see this phrase mentioned adequately in the target article; there's a phrase mentioned in the article that sort of resembles the redirect, but it's not really specific enough to verify this connection is correct or to define the phrase. In addition, after reading Old Catholic Church, It seems like this redirect could refer to that as well? Also, the redirect's edit history shows that this redirect has been subject to a good number of retargetings. It may just be best to delete this redirect so readers can use Wikipedia's search results to determine which article they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Independent Catholicism is another potential target. This seems like something which should to an extent be discussed somewhere, perhaps Full communion#Catholic Church which currently only discusses those which are in communion. If no suitable target can be found then deletion may be best. A7V2 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Independent Catholicism, which is the current title of the original target. This is a plausible search for someone struggling to recall the exact title, but a number of page moves messed up where this was supposed to go. The current target is the result of a bot move and is definitely wrong; it's literally the opposite of what the reader would be looking for. Independent Catholicism links to Old Catholic Church in the lead, so anyone looking for that would still find it. That article also links to a list of such denominations, in case someone is looking for a specific one. – Scyrme (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC) (Edit: +second preference for retargeting to Catholicity, if everyone except myself agrees that the broader meaning of "catholic" is plausibly relevant here - see below.)
- Delete: per nom. Eastern Orthdox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. all consider themselves this—independent, Old, and Liberal Catholics are not alone in this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - there are far too many valid targets for us to be able to choose one in particular. How do you disambiguate a redirect? I agree that "Catholic Church" is not a good target if that article does not have adequate information on the term, but perhaps we could direct to some theological concept of communion, ecclesiology, or doctrinal orthodoxy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The broader concept is covered at Catholic (term), but I'm not convinced that connection is plausible. Many denominations use "catholic" in its broader sense, but they are not generally referred to simply as "catholics". (Regarding
How do you disambiguate a redirect?
, that's done by targeting a disambiguation page; a number related to catholicism exist: Catholic (disambiguation), Catholic Church (disambiguation), Catholicism (disambiguation).) – Scyrme (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC) - The problem with attempting to create a disambiguation page for this term, however, is that none of their targets named or alternatively named this term. For example, it would make sense if there are multiple things called "Catholic" (such as with Catholic (disambiguation), but none of these topics are called "Catholics not in communion with Rome" specifically. Instead, this phrase is a generic way to describe aspects of certain topics. In cases like this, either deletion of the redirect or overwriting the redirect with a list article is preferred. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't really suggesting it be disambiguated. My point was the broader concept already has relevant disambiguation pages, so doesn't really need another.
- If everyone else feels that the broader "catholic" faith is a plausible target, Catholicity would be the appropriate article.
- That article describes its own scope as: "
the body of beliefs which are described as "catholic"
", while also linking to Catholic (term) in its hatnote. Independent Catholicism is linked in the lead of that article. The section Catholicity § Denominational interpretations goes into more depth about the RCC vs Independent Catholicism vs other denominations that describe themselves as "catholic" in the broader sense of catholic faith. – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The broader concept is covered at Catholic (term), but I'm not convinced that connection is plausible. Many denominations use "catholic" in its broader sense, but they are not generally referred to simply as "catholics". (Regarding
- Delete per nom. I disagree with Scyrme: not all those who call themselves Catholics and are not in communion with the Holy See qualify as Independent Catholics (which is a precise definition; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Breakaway Catholic Church). Veverve (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to one of the two suggested targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Veverve and Pbritti for an opinion on the second target preference of Catholicity. Jay 💬 07:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Catholicity is way too broad, I still stand by my deletion suggestion. Veverve (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Blended networking
Redistrict
- Redistrict → Redistricting in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Redistricting → Redistribution (election) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22 § Redistricting – retarget to Redistribution (election)
These should point to the same target. feminist (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget Redistricting to Redistricting in the United States This is a classic example of American English vs. other dialects. As mentioned in the lede for Redistribution (election), "redistricting" is the term used in the U.S. The vast majority of the 1,800+ links appear to be U.S.-related, so the U.S.-specific article is the presumed intended target. A hatnote to the broader article would probably be appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like there is already a hatnote at Redistricting in the United States. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting, as that is the clear and unambiguous primary meaning of the term. BD2412 T 23:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Good idea. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely support that idea. The result of the last RfD is pretty much an abomination, and contra-WP:ENGVAR – "redistricting" is a U.S. specific term and originated there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- It originated in US, but apparently the same term is used in present-day Phillipines (someone brought that up in last debate). So, it by itself, is ambiguous. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's really not. And if anyone is concerned, you add a hatnote to the Philippines article. But BD2412 and Thryduulf and the others are exactly right about this, and arguments against this proposal don't hold water (and some of the other votes are coming off as simple anti-U.S. bias). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- It originated in US, but apparently the same term is used in present-day Phillipines (someone brought that up in last debate). So, it by itself, is ambiguous. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the previous target was Redistricting in the United States, and was retargeted to the current target at an RfD not long ago. I have listed that RfD in this discussion. Jay 💬 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting. I just read the previous RfD, and I am not convinced that Redistribution (election)#Philippines is comparable to the process in the United States with regard to usage and significance for the purpose of WP:PTOPIC. feminist (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging the participants of the previous RfD: Awesome Aasim, Thryduulf, DGG, Howard the Duck, IJBall, Veverve, AKK-700, and CX Zoom. Jay 💬 06:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Redistribution (election): the US is not the entire world. Veverve (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget all to Redistribution (election) as we do with other dialect specific terms like color and colour. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment the concept of changing the boundaries of and/or number of people elected by electoral districts is very much not restricted to the United States, however the use of the term "redistricting" for that concept nearly is, with the Philippines being the only other country to use it. I haven't looked again just now, so I'm not bolding a vote, but when I looked previously the US was absolutely overwhelmingly the primary topic for "residistricting" even when actively trying to exclude results for that country. If this is still the case then it should redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting, place U.S. and Philippines content under that article, add a hatnote about this in
RedistributionRedistribution (election). partially as per Thryduulf. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (Corrected link to Redistribution (election). Howard the Duck (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC))- This is also an acceptable outcome, yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- As long as both the Redistricting and Redistribution (election) articles have clear links to the other then this seems like a good solution. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this one, there's a hatnote at the top, and a hatnote each in the Philippines and United States sections using {{main}}.
- What happens is that "Redistricting" becomes a "Redistribution in foo" article, only that due to WP:ENGVAR, it's named that as "Redistricting" and not "Redistribution in the United States". It can be argued that redistricting in the U.S. is by itself an extensive enough article and qualifies as a daughter article of redistribution (election). The Philippines gets to be mentioned in the "Redistricting" article again due to WP:ENGVAR. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
María do Céu
3615
Clipchamp
Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro)
"Alexander Reichstein"
Snake handling in religion
Afen
Mathematics and God
5 ½ Weeks Tour
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#5 ½ Weeks Tour
December 30
The Queen Consort
- The Queen Consort → Camilla, Queen Consort (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:RECENTISM, WP:DEFINITE. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: as with The Prince Consort to Albert, this title is unique to Camilla. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Queen consort. This is unlikely to be used as a search term by someone looking for Camilla, and there are plenty of other queens consort around the world and historically. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- But it's not at all unlikely, she is referred to in the Court Circular by this exact title. There is no other queen consort known officially as "The Queen Consort". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but unofficially it could refer to any queen consort as it's a basic grammatically correct construct. This paper, for example, has "The Queen Consort" in its title, but relates to medieval Portugal, not Camilla. – Scyrme (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- But it's not at all unlikely, she is referred to in the Court Circular by this exact title. There is no other queen consort known officially as "The Queen Consort". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Keepper Neveselbert. A search in English for the singular “The Queen Consort” could only mean Camilla. Either that, or delete, and leave it to the internal search engine. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)- Delete outright is a good option. The Wikipedia internal search engine works, and redirects prevent the reader from accessing it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete outright. The barely ever followed redirect necessitates a hatnote at the top of a very popular article, and the hatnote detracts from that article. By deleting, no hatnote is needed, and anyone searching will get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&search=The+Queen+Consort&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 which is a far superior result for their peculiar and rare action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and retain the hatnote. In searching, it does seem like Camilla is the primary topic, although it could hypothetically refer to other people in some contexts.
- Regarding, WP:DEFINITE, I think this is an exception since it's actually part of the title. WP:THE lists a number of exceptions to the general guidance on avoiding definite articles. – Scyrme (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If a reader types in "the queen consort," there is no doubt they are looking for an article about Camilla. Considering the purpose of re-directs is to help readers find the article they are looking for, this is the best re-direct. RECENTISM was never meant to apply to re-directs. TFD (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Temporarily keep As much as I dislike this redirect, I have to agree that most ordinary people searching "The Queen Consort" on Wikipedia would do that with the intention of getting to Camilla's article. In a few years, we might have to rethink this, but for now, she definitely seems to be the primary subject. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Much of the discourse here, and below at 'Prince Consort', misunderstands the function of the word 'consort'. Queen Camilla is simply that; Queen Camilla. She is Queen by virtue of being the current consort of the UK monarch. As a historical example, Queen Elizabeth, the mother of Queen Elizabeth 2nd of England, was simply Queen Elizabeth when her husband was monarch. Male consorts of monarchs are not designated King; the historical reason for this was that the title King was considered senior to Queen and so the monarchial status of the Queen regnant would be confused. As a historical example, Prince Phillip was a prince (in Greece and Denmark) in his own right but was given the title of Prince by his wife in 1957. He was therefore simply Prince Phillip. He was, technically, not a UK prince because he was the Queen's consort but was rather a UK prince in his own right. The London Times has dropped the 'consort' as it is superfluous and not part of Camilla's formal title. The continued use of 'consort' specifically in respect of Camilla is essentially a function of old royal PR. Notably, when Princess Diana died Camilla was very unpopular, to the extent that the future of the monarchy was often considered to be in doubt. The palace let it be known that Camilla would never become Queen but would be called something else. Over time, the UK public came to accept that Camilla would indeed be Queen (it really was never a choice for the palace - The King's consort is Queen). In due course, she has indeed become Queen. The 'consort' was used during QE2's funeral by the BBC in order to distinguish Camilla from the dead Queen. Any continued use of 'consort' today is simply a misunderstanding of the term. Finally, not least in view of all this, it is absurd for the notion of a Queen Consort in many places across the world to apply to a single person. It's hard to think of a more imperalist idea. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's the precedent, yes, but in practice Camilla is being treated differently to other past consorts, both by official sources (the Royal Family website, the Court Circular, etc.) and by the majority of reliable news outlets. Not that I see why that is of much relevance to a redirect for discussion... Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because it's not a real status and it's absurd, as I say, to suggest that the notion of Queen Consort should direct to a specific person. It's all a function of daft PR. Emmentalist (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- While officially is was "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" and "Prince Philip, Prince Consort" and "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," for that matter, it is "Camilla, Queen Consort." As you mentioned, Camilla has been treated differently so far in terms of her title, although that may change. TFD (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Queen incidentally is equal to not inferior to king. The reason that the wife of the king takes the title Queen while the husband of the queen does not take the title King is that women assume the female equivalents of their husband's title, while men do not assume their wives' titles. For example, Mr. Smith's wife is Mrs. Smith. TFD (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's the precedent, yes, but in practice Camilla is being treated differently to other past consorts, both by official sources (the Royal Family website, the Court Circular, etc.) and by the majority of reliable news outlets. Not that I see why that is of much relevance to a redirect for discussion... Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or retarget to Queen consort this can refer to other people not just Camilla Qwv (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- The redirect did not exist until after Camilla took the title, one should note. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete outright or Redirect to Queen consort page. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand the delete votes. If Wikipedia has plausible targets it is preferable to either redirect to a primary topic, a list article, set index, or disambiguation page rather than force readers to trawl through search engine results. Hatnotes can be added to aid navigation. Redirects also do not prevent readers accessing the search engine by using the search page directly if the redirects, disambiguation pages, and hatnotes fail them.
- Regarding Emmentalist's comments, they seem a bit WP:GREATWRONGS. Both her own article and List of titles and honours of Camilla, Queen Consort note that she is styled "The Queen Consort", and she has been referred to as such in official statements and in the news. Regardless of whether she should be known simply as "Queen Camilla", she is known as "The Queen Consort".
- Camilla, Queen Consort already has an appropriate hatnote for other uses of the phrase; people looking for other queen consorts can still easily find the general article. If others do not agree with me that Camilla is the primary topic for this phrase in English with this exact capitalisation and including the definite article, then targetting Queen consort would be better than deletion. – Scyrme (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirects prevent the the internal search engine from being invoked. While the reader has ways to access the internal search engine functionality, there is quite a barrier to that. If there is any chance that the reader didn’t want exactly the Camilla, Queen Consort article, the search engine results are better, and more robust a solution long term. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the reader didn't want exactly Camilla, Queen Consort they can easily just click the link in the hatnote; that's what it's there for. This is how things normally work when there's a primary topic. If I search "Catholic Church" it goes to the article for the Roman Catholic Church, but there's a hatnote for other uses of the term, such as the Orthodox Catholic Church (more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church). – Scyrme (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you search, don't you expect the search engine to be invoked? If there's a redirect matching your search term, the redirect prevents the search engine from being invoked.
- If there's a primary topic, why is the hatnote needed?
- Hatnotes are unwanted clutter in the prime real estate of the article, if the article is the article you wanted. Hatnotes are not superior to letting search entries invoke the search engine. Hatnotes require assumptions, and maintenance as new topics arise.
- Deleting the redirect means that the article hatnote can be dropped, and so this is a good reason to delete there direct. Until this RfD, the redirect had negligible pageviews, the few there were were were probably bots. The article receives ten thousand more views, and every reader has to read a useless hatnote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
If you search, don't you expect the search engine to be invoked?
No, not always; I often expect my search query to take me straight to an article or to a disambiguation page. For a basic, uncomplicated query like "The Queen Consort" I would expect to go straight to an article, list, or disambiguation page. If I found it was a red link I would create a redirect, because I would be surprised that it doesn't already exist.- Hatnotes are usually needed when there's a primary topic. Being a "primary topic" implies the existence of other topics which could be relevant.
- Hatnotes are recommended by WP:DISAMBIG in many circumstances which I believe apply here. Readers for whom the hatnote is not relevant will just glance past it; it's not difficult. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- 10,000 scroll past it, for every one who used the redirect. A little bit difficult times 10,000 so that those who use the redirect go straight to some Wikipedians’ guess of what they really wanted. Or lose the hatnote, and let those few per week using the search box see the results of the search.
I often expect my search query to take me straight to …
. This is a corruption of the word “search”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)- Glancing past a single short line of text requires no scrolling. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
- If you entered "The Queen" into Wikipedia's search bar would you expect it to take you to search results or straight to a relevant page? Likewise, would you expect "Fork" to go to search results or to a relevant page? If you answered the former, you're from some parallel universe where Wikipedia exists but functions completely differently. Your expectations of how things are supposed to work make no sense.
- The Queen currently goes straight to a disambiguation page; has done for over a decade. Fork goes to a primary topic and links to disambiguation pages in a hatnote. That is how things normally work on Wikipedia for titles like this. Why is just doing things the normal way controversial? Why treat this title differently to similar redirects from titles with the definite article like The Duke or The Consort? Why does WP:DISAMBIG not apply? – Scyrme (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the reader didn't want exactly Camilla, Queen Consort they can easily just click the link in the hatnote; that's what it's there for. This is how things normally work when there's a primary topic. If I search "Catholic Church" it goes to the article for the Roman Catholic Church, but there's a hatnote for other uses of the term, such as the Orthodox Catholic Church (more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church). – Scyrme (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirects prevent the the internal search engine from being invoked. While the reader has ways to access the internal search engine functionality, there is quite a barrier to that. If there is any chance that the reader didn’t want exactly the Camilla, Queen Consort article, the search engine results are better, and more robust a solution long term. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Queen consort. The Queen Consort is an ambiguous term as there are many queen consorts around the world. The article should be retargeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast303 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Queen consort The title is not unique to Camilla. There have been dozens of other queens consort, and in fact, Alexandra of Denmark was explicitly referred to as "The Queen Consort" in the immediate months following Queen Victoria's death (check Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort where the links to documents referring to Alexandra as such were provided in the RM). Keivan.fTalk 06:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Queen consort per voices above and per WP:GLOBALISE. — kashmīrī TALK 08:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At least for now Queen Camilla will be known as Queen Consort. I think it's pretty save to believe that most people will be looking for her rather than the title of any Queen consort. Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The Prince Consort
Pragmatic atheism
- Pragmatic atheism → Atheism#Pragmatic atheism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Pragmatic atheist → Apatheism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article, nor does the targeted section exist, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Also, when this redirect was originally created in 2008, it targeted Apatheism, but the redirect doesn't seem to be mentioned there either. In addition, in 2016, the redirect was overwritten with an article, but existed for only a day before the article was subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This only mentions of this on Wikipedia are Practical atheism and List of converts to Christianity from nontheism. Neither defines the term. The latter is a brief entry on Giovanni Papini, apparently referring his philosophical pragmatism; it could be editorial synthesis (perhaps an attempt at concisely summarising his views), as it's not clear that Papini's pragmatism and atheism were necessarily connected (many notable pragmatists, such as C.S. Pierce, believed in God; similarly, atheists don't necessarily espouse pragmatism in a formal philosophical sense). It's not clear if the former is also simply a reference to pragmatism. This seems like a case of WP:REDYES.
- It could also be a case of WP:NEO; a brief search gives largely social media and forums like Quora (the snippet of which actually reads: "
there is no such thing as “pragmatic” atheism
".). RationalWiki states that "pragmatic atheism" is "sometimes equated
" with weak atheism, suggesting that one is a synonym for the other preferred by some people, although even this is unclear - the phrasing suggests that some people use it differently, but doesn't specify how. - The former, Practical atheism explicitly distinguishes "pragmatic" and "practical" atheism, stating that it is a mistake to equate them, but this is unreferenced. I found an online source that actually contradicts this. If this redirect is not deleted my second preference is retarget to practical atheism.
- tl;dr: WP:REDYES applies here; WP:NEO may also apply. – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added Pragmatic atheist to the nomination. @Scyrme: Pinging you since you have participated. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- This one is mentioned at List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater, where it quotes The Daily Telegraph but only in a footnote; the quote doesn't define the term, but it may plausibly have been used as a synonym for "practical atheism". I'd recommend the same: delete with second preference for retargeting to practical atheism. – Scyrme (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget both, to Practical atheism. Reasonable alternative search terms (regardless of unsourced claim at new target that they can be distinguished). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- The mention of pragmatic atheism was added to the lead of Practical atheism by an editor who wrote the same one-day pre-BLAR stub at Pragmatic atheism mentioned in the nomination. At the stub however, he had used the word "related" and not "mistaken", and sourced it to an about.com (now thoughtco.com) freelance writng piece which said
.. there is a lot of overlap with apatheists and practical atheists.
It is the same writing piece (now enhanced) that is now referenced at the lead of Practical atheism. So I have just moved the citation across, and replaced "mistaken" with "overlap". Just for reference, the piece now saysThe main difference between pragmatic atheists and practical atheists is that a pragmatic atheist has considered their position and adopted it philosophical reasons; the practical atheist seems to adopt it simply because it's easiest.
Jay 💬 06:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for doing that. Even with that change, I still think that retargeting both redirects to Practical atheism is the correct outcome here, for the same reason as before: they are both plausible navigation terms, regardless of whether one gets to the target via a synonym or an antonym. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Redirects to Laura White
VAHP
Inverted snob
Everett P. Christopher Arboretum
Judy Sender
Red Kings
Rational Association
List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea
Anti-Masonry/archive
- Anti-Masonry/archive → Anti-Masonry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Was split from Freemasonry in March of 2003 and merged back in July of 2005, only for a new Anti-Masonry to be written in October 2005, at least some of which seems to have been taken from Freemasonry. Suggest histmerge to Anti-Masonry without redirect, discarding the 5 edits that postdate July '05. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- No particular opinion on the redirect, but note there is some talkpage discussion that might be useful to save. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Would support moving talkpage with redirect to Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 0 or Talk:Anti-Masonry/Early Archive (the pseudo-title it's piped to from the main talkpage). The resulting redirect would be G8-exempt like any other useful talk subpage. (There's also nothing wrong with just leaving the talkpage as is, as it's also G8-exempt, but I see that as suboptimal since it's unclear nomenclature and we might as well clean that up while we're here.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II
Template:Reference necessary
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Template:Reference necessary
Italkic rite
Hank Pecker
Digital sculpture
A Jobber
Heliostropolis, Etc.
- Heliostropolis, Etc. → Daniel Defoe (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Heliostropolis, Etc → Daniel Defoe (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Heliostropolis was one of Daniel Defoe's pseudonym's when he became a writer in 1695, amongst several. It is not mentioned in the article but it could be. Worth updating the article and keeping the redirect. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has not been updated with a mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (who I assume is proposing deletion). This pseudonym is not mentioned at the target, and I see no reason for keeping. If a mention is eventually added, then these can be recreated; but in the meantime it seems pointless to keep. CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Refine to Daniel Defoe#Attribution_and_de-attribution, where it's made clear that listing all of his pen names is not feasible. But here's a reference establishing that Heliostropolis was one.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as costly, and delete any other name not mentioned at the target. Some have already been deleted at RfD. Daniel Defoe used 198 pen names, and as the Attribution section says, scholars are finding it challenging to put this together. Without a mention, readers will find it confusing when they land up at the target, and without a sourced mention, it'll be a continuous challenge for editors to keep validating any existing and newer redirects. O. Henry#Pen name mentions the more popular of his pen names, the same can be done for Defoe. It is not hard to append a pen name in brackets against a mentioned work of Defoe not written under his real name. Jay 💬 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Halkett, Samuel; Laing, John (1882). A Dictionary of the Anonymous and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain: Including the Works of Foreigners Written In, Or Translated Into the English Language. W. Paterson. p. 435.
Wikiwikiwiki
Death of everything
Washington D.C. press corps
Another final batch of "[Article]/Archive x" redirects
Moored balloon/Archive1
Pig butchering
Wikipedia:ALF
Royal you
Kawasockie
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Kawasockie
Wikipedia:Presumed consensus
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Wikipedia:Presumed consensus
December 28
Brandy cocktail
Trans Sexuality
Anti-Latter Day Saint sentiment in the United States
By-wire
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#By-wire
Anne of Great Britain
Lily Kershaw
Barbara “Bobo” Sears Rockefeller
Esoteric Runology
- Esoteric Runology → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Odian → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Odianism → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Odinic Runosophy → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Rune Gild → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Runosophy → Stephen Flowers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These redirects seem to be intended to promote the article rather than accurately redirect the reader. — Skyerise (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dabify Odian to Yervant Odian and Krikor Odian --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- Redirect Runosophy to Runology, Dabify Odian to Yervant Odian and Krikor Odian per Lenticel, and Delete rest. RoostTC(ping me!) 06:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a draft DAB was just created at Odian, it's still unclear what should be done with the rest of these redirects… Retarget all to the dab, keep, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)- The dab is on a surname, and not related to the topic(s) being discussed. There was no suggestion by any participant to retarget any of the redirects to the dab. Jay 💬 12:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jay: I already know that. The suggestions that I made above were made to encourage participants to discuss the other redirects, which were not mentioned by anyone except by Roost who's in favor of deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- The dab is on a surname, and not related to the topic(s) being discussed. There was no suggestion by any participant to retarget any of the redirects to the dab. Jay 💬 12:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Ring of regular functions
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Ring of regular functions
Sociomedical assessment
Arab Armenians
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Arab Armenians
Groat's Disease
December 27
Private Limited
Sanathana Sarathi
- Sanathana Sarathi → List of titles and names of Krishna (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sanathana Sarathi (title of Krishna) → List of titles and names of Krishna (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sanatana Sarathi → Sanathana Sarathi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sanathana Sarathi (disambiguation) → Sanathana Sarathi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no mention of "Sanathana Sarathi" at the target, and without a mention these redirects are confusing. I can't see another reasonable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all agree with nom rationale. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Restore the disambiguation that was at Sanathana Sarathi. One of the entries can be Sanathana Sarathi (title of Krishna) which can be retargeted to Sarathy, and the magazine entry linked with Sathya Sai Baba movement. Jay 💬 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Jay's proposal: draft dab available below the redirect. The epithet is probably too obscure to be the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Solomon system
Cool-O-Meter
Draft:Minecraft
Ethereum Blockchain as a Service
Captain George Carleton
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Captain George Carleton
Modeling program
Doom (video game)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Doom (video game)
Twittergate
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Twittergate
H-pattern
Ukrainian partisans
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Ukrainian partisans
Foreign Policy Council
Tory party
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Tory party
Life of Christ
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Life of Christ
Brian O'Conner/archive
- Brian O'Conner/archive → Brian O'Conner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Another merge-and-then-resplit. Has overlapping content, so histmerge to Brian O'Conner without redirect, discarding the edits since Oct. '09. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)- Delete I'm not sure about this so i would say delete. 174.27.66.83 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)- Delete Implausable search term, and [article]/archive style redirects are usually deleted anyway. Someone-123-321 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- We cannot delete this as it has history that was merged to another article. A histmerge-without-redirect would have the same effect of removing the redirect; is there a reason you are opposed to that, Someone-123-321? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- facepalm: Self reminder to check the history.
- Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- We cannot delete this as it has history that was merged to another article. A histmerge-without-redirect would have the same effect of removing the redirect; is there a reason you are opposed to that, Someone-123-321? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Histmerge without redirect: per nom. This page is not helpful as a redirect, but it does have content that should be history merged into Brian O'Conner. TartarTorte 13:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The Presidio
Tlou (tv series)
Smugging
Social network concept
Hampton Primary School
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Hampton Primary School
Yarra Bend
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Yarra Bend
Moemar
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Moemar
Tshibaka Alaska
Sari Santal
CPPRC
Current European Car of the Year
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Current European Car of the Year
December 19
Phillip Geissler
Smugging
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Smugging
Social network creation
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Social network creation
Sari Santal
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Sari Santal
CPPRC
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#CPPRC
Social network concept
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Social network concept
Electronic sociability
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Electronic sociability
Solomon system
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Solomon system
Four on the floor (transmission)
- Four on the floor (transmission) → Manual transmission#"Four on the floor" (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The section this targets was removed, and this is no-longer discussed anywhere in the article or anywhere else I could find except for on the disambiguation page Four on the floor. I think this should be deleted unless mention can be re-added (or if there's a better target I missed). A7V2 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to gear stick. The four-on-floor material was deleted from the manual transmission article with the rationale of "trimming to avoid WP:FORK- this level of detail is appropriate for the dedicated article". The rationale was sound but that material was never moved to the dedicated article. — AjaxSmack 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - if retargeted, mention would need to be added, and I'm not sure where in the article that could be done? A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where this term is mentioned and briefly described. Also remove the circular redirect that links there. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris: Your suggested target is a disambiguation page, and if the link is removed there, the entry will be deleted anyway. Jay 💬 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jay: A reference needs to be added there as to prevent the entry from being deleted. Although it's not the most suitable target, it will inform readers about this term and its meaning. CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DABREF says not to do that. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Then rewrite the entry as suggested by Rosguill below, providing a link to the Manual transmission article. CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DABREF says not to do that. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jay: A reference needs to be added there as to prevent the entry from being deleted. Although it's not the most suitable target, it will inform readers about this term and its meaning. CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris: Your suggested target is a disambiguation page, and if the link is removed there, the entry will be deleted anyway. Jay 💬 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where the entry could be rewritten as
Four on the floor, a type of four-speed manual transmission with a floor-mounted shifter
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) - Retarget to gear stick per Ajax and tag as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses and rewrite per Rosguill. {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory; this is not. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to whatever page has a definition of the term (or any sort of relevant content): at the moment, that's Four on the floor#Other uses (to be rewritten as Rosguill suggested). – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses per BDD and Uanfala.MusiBedrock (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Template:R to publisher
Current European Car of the Year
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Current European Car of the Year
Cailfornium isotope
Antistia (Q518068)
Social networking 2.0
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Social networking 2.0
Blue Munda
Macaulay Culkon
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Macaulay Culkon
Emoteatron, Jr.
Cool-O-Meter
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Cool-O-Meter
Medulla (Bjoerk album)
Ostbahnhof
Draft:Minecraft
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Draft:Minecraft
Kamal Ahmed (comedian, producer, writer, director)
Frank Bananarama
Adriano (footballer, born 1982)
Capri Sun (album)
Aritra Banerjee
Mogsex
Brainwallet
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Brainwallet
Geth (software)
Szabo (value token)
Slock.it
Digix
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Digix
Ethereum Blockchain as a Service
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Ethereum Blockchain as a Service
More Nausicaae redirects
December 11
List of every Wikipedia article
Afen
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 31#Afen
Anno reparatae salutis humanae
Taihoku County
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18#Taihoku County
Pugilistic
Frage
Solar gun
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18#Solar gun
METAL GEAR SOLID 2 SONS OF LIBIRTY
Gem corn
- Gem corn → Flint corn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Glass gem corn → Flint corn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Glass corn → Flint corn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in target. This is a variety of Flint corn. Searching finds mainly commercial sites such as this. MB 01:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I couldn't find any mention of this variety of maize on Wikipedia, so I made the redirects. (I believe flint corn is an appropriate destination, until glass gem corn has an article of its own.) Glass gem corn has been covered by at least four news organisations:
- ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/05/new-rainbow-colored-glass-gem-corn
- Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-behind-glass-gem-corn-2013-10
- The Statesman: https://www.thestatesman.com/lifestyle/know-glass-gem-corn-1503040477.html
- The Times of India: https://recipes.timesofindia.com/articles/food-facts/is-glass-gem-corn-real-and-can-one-eat-it/photostory/66055246.cms
- Tim Ivorson 2022-11-27 20:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - These might well be notable, or at least worth mentioning at the current target or elsewhere, but without a mention these redirects aren't helpful to someone searching them. A7V2 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and tag as {{R without mention}}. Glass corn appears to be yet another name for flint corn, so I'm not sure why it's not mentioned at the target. Jay 💬 08:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - the web stores and news sources describing this variety do not identify it with flint corn, zea mays var. indurata, but rather with its parent species zea mays. The descriptions further suggest a cross-lineage heritage with other types of corn, with at least one variety of popcorn specifically named in the Business Insider article. It doesn't seem due to include in the general article for Maize nor is it clearly identifiable with a single variety, so deletion pending separate article creation seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's described as flint corn here: https://www.nativeseeds.org/blogs/blog-news/the-story-of-glass-gem-corn-beauty-history-and-hope. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete {{R without mention}}s need strong reasons for existing in my book. These at least tell a reader they mean maize and not another substance called corn, but that's not much. More likely they're looking for specific information, and will be disappointed that we don't follow through on it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom et al. I agree that these redirects are completely unhelpful due to the lack of a mention, so keeping seems pointless in my opinion. Without prejudice to recreating if anyone adds a mention later on. CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, speculative. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Malformed MOS: redirects
Reverse snobbery
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 21#Reverse snobbery
Rubber Duck Entertainment (UK)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 20#Rubber Duck Entertainment (UK)
Anti-Masonry/archive
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Anti-Masonry/archive
Brian O'Conner/archive
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Brian O'Conner/archive
Loophole (1981 film)/Archive
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 20#Loophole (1981 film)/Archive
Richard E. Mayer/Archive
Rahim Yar Khan/archive
Mocchi
- Mocchi → Monster Rancher#Mocchi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Lu Mocchi could be moved to Mocchi. Actual redirect Mocchi is not being used. Per es:Mocchi / MOS:NB. MikutoH (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mochi as a potential plausible misspelling. The spelling is so plausible that I don't see WP:SMALLDETAILS validating this title associating with anything else. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep: If Mocchi goes by just Mocchi as opposed to the current article title, per MOS:GID we should move the page to Mocchi (singer) immediately and then have a discussion on WP:PTOPIC at a move request at Talk:Mocchi (singer). Proc keep as this is more a move request than an RfD. MikutoH feel free to reach out here or on my talk page if you want help with the move request or an explanation of my vote. TartarTorte 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between mochi, Lu Mocchi, the musician from Run Girls, Run!, Kaori Mochida, and the musician from Sakanaction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mochi per Steel as a plausible misspelling. Not sure if disambiguation would be appropriate, seeing as how most of these entries are rather obscure. CycloneYoris talk! 00:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Lu Mocchi, and wait for the outcome of a future WP:RM. I don't see this as a plausible misspelling, but will be OK with it if we don't have a potential target, disambiguation page or pages with no mentions. If we're looking at the misspelling angle, the reader may be looking for one the entries at Mochi (disambiguation) and not necessarily the Japanese rice cake. Jay 💬 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per LaundryPizza due to apparent lack of a clear primary topic. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the mentions at LaundryPizza's articles are unsourced and I had added a {{citation needed}} for them. Jay 💬 05:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Move Lu Mocchi over redirect. I'm not opposed to a Mocchi (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mocchi ball
Moo (Monster Rancher)
Mögsex
The Dotted Line Foundation
December 4
Brassière or bra
Aspekt
Minister of State for Care and Mental Health
SouthAfrica
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12#SouthAfrica
Afen
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Afen
Charles III of England (disambiguation)
Destroy Dick December
Rank and file (chess)
Timeline of Square
- Timeline of Square → Block, Inc.#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this target Block, Inc.#History (formerly known as Square, Inc., target of the redirect for that name) or Square (financial services)#History? I lean toward the latter. (N.B., I just re-refined this from nonexistent section § Timeline.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as both vague and ambiguous. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleteas hopelessly ambiguous with Square Enix, which has its own storied history. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)- Redirect to Square (financial services), add
{{R from history}}
as it covers most of the services mentioned there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Disambig between Block, Inc.#History, Square (financial services)#History and Square (video game company)#History. Jay 💬 08:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also fine with moving without redirect to one of the alternate titles suggested by Uanfala. The AfD of Timeline of Square had suggested that it is unusual to have timeline articles for companies, and probably DAB pages too, per Uanfala's point about subtopic disambiguation. Jay 💬 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per Jay. I have added the proposed disambiguation at the bottom of the page. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Move to something like Timeline of Square Inc. or Timeline of Square (financial services company) in order to keep the article history here at a related title. Then retarget Timeline of Square to the dab section Square (disambiguation)#Brands and enterprises, which lists the three articles whose history sections have been linked in the draft dab above. I'm really not keen on disambiguating separately here, as that would mean we should be expected to create similar dab pages for the all commensurate subtopics of the thousands and thousands of articles with ambiguous names. – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC) -- Update: I continue to favour keeping the article history somewhere, but as for the fate of the title Timeline of Square, I won't object to deletion: such a redirect seems implausible, but I weakly favour retargeting in order to help any readers who may be arriving at this title get to the nearest best thing. – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#History of Bingo. We would need a discussion around subtopic disambiguation. Jay 💬 07:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see why that may be tempting in the context of a single RfD, but I thought it would obviously be a bad idea on account of how it doesn't scale up: there are over 400,000 dab pages, and probably the great majority of these will include articles with commensurate sets of subtopics. If we tried creating similar subtopic dabs for the rest of Wikipedia, we'd likely need to double the number of existing dab pages several times over. In this particular case, there's also another factor that makes such a dab less desirable: none of the linked articles contain actual timelines (one, maybe two, of those article's history sections feel a bit like timelines, but that's down to poor writing that should hopefully get improved in the future). – Uanfala (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Right. "Timeline" is not proper, and it may be moved to something like History of Square. Agree that subtopic disambiguation is a bad idea in the long term. Jay 💬 02:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see why that may be tempting in the context of a single RfD, but I thought it would obviously be a bad idea on account of how it doesn't scale up: there are over 400,000 dab pages, and probably the great majority of these will include articles with commensurate sets of subtopics. If we tried creating similar subtopic dabs for the rest of Wikipedia, we'd likely need to double the number of existing dab pages several times over. In this particular case, there's also another factor that makes such a dab less desirable: none of the linked articles contain actual timelines (one, maybe two, of those article's history sections feel a bit like timelines, but that's down to poor writing that should hopefully get improved in the future). – Uanfala (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#History of Bingo. We would need a discussion around subtopic disambiguation. Jay 💬 07:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Not seeing what the problem is here. "Square" was the former name for "Block, Inc." so it isn't a misleading redirect any more than any other rename would leave things as misleading (e.g. some "Timeline of OldCompanyName"). SnowFire (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- But you are assuming that Block is the primary topic for things that could have timelines named "Square". There is more than one former company named Square. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a devout player of all the non-MMO Final Fantasies, I'm familiar with Japanese Square-pre-Enix, but I also don't think it's a problem until someone creates a "Timeline of Square" article (or at least a "Timeline of Square and Square Enix" article). If such an article is created, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: By "don't think it's a problem", are you saying the ambiguity mentioned in the nomination statement is not a problem? How is a target of Block, Inc.#History better or more primary than Square (financial services)#History or Square (video game company)#History? Jay 💬 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, it's not a problem. To me, talking about "ambiguity" inherently means ambiguity on Wikipedia, not in the entire dictionary. As such, it's only worth worrying about when/if there is a competing article. In other words, if there was a redirect called XYZ of Apple, it wouldn't really matter if it went to the company, the fruit, or something else. Only if there were at least two senses on Wikipedia is it a concern. More generally, redirects are cheap. Having a merged article persist as a redirect is harmless, no need to create tiny disambiguation pages every time this happens.
- I will say that I have no objection to moving the article history to somewhere else if truly desired, e.g. Timeline of Square (financial services company) per Uanfala. I'd just keep the old title as the existing harmless redirect it is since there isn't any ambiguity-on-Wikipedia until somebody writes that timeline-of-Square-the-Japanese-company. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- You're either not getting what the nom, Mellohi and I are saying, or I'm not getting your point. We're talking about the redirect title "Timeline of Square" regardless of whether it used to be an article in the past. On the English Wikipedia, there are three claimants for that title. I'll sign off by saying I don't see how you don't see the ambiguity. Jay 💬 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: By "don't think it's a problem", are you saying the ambiguity mentioned in the nomination statement is not a problem? How is a target of Block, Inc.#History better or more primary than Square (financial services)#History or Square (video game company)#History? Jay 💬 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a devout player of all the non-MMO Final Fantasies, I'm familiar with Japanese Square-pre-Enix, but I also don't think it's a problem until someone creates a "Timeline of Square" article (or at least a "Timeline of Square and Square Enix" article). If such an article is created, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- But you are assuming that Block is the primary topic for things that could have timelines named "Square". There is more than one former company named Square. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I amend my previous delete vote into disambiguate. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, none of the proposed targets have a timeline section or even mention the word "timeline". The merged content from the aforementioned AfD has been removed, so the history does not need to be kept. Nevertheless, the timeline section has been preserved at Talk:Block, Inc./Archive 1#Timeline. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Tavix, deleting the history will make it impossible to repair the attribution of the content in the talk page section you've linked to. The copyright policy applies to all of Wikipedia, not just the articles. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- My recollection of WP:MAD was a bit fuzzy. One of the options for what a merge and delete may look like is to paste the page history at the talk page, not the page content. I have now rectified that. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tavix, deleting the history will make it impossible to repair the attribution of the content in the talk page section you've linked to. The copyright policy applies to all of Wikipedia, not just the articles. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Tavix. Timeline and history are not synonymous. None of the company articles have formal timelines, though some of their history sections are closer. Second choice would be move and retarget per Uanfala. I'm not fond of the idea of a standalone disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix. That, and a disambiguation page would be confusing since this is a generalized phrase to define subconcepts and not the name of a subject itself. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix and Steel1943. signed, Rosguill talk 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Rosguill. Very ambiguous term. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
List of ancient Jedi
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#List of ancient Jedi
Anno reparatae salutis humanae
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Anno reparatae salutis humanae
Mud hen
Gem corn
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Gem corn
Hurricane, Mississippi
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Hurricane, Mississippi