Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C. A. Russell (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 27 January 2024 (→‎The Dawn is Your Enemy: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2024.

Jakt

A term that is mentioned a good amount of times across Wikipedia, and there looks to be some character or word mentions here and there that this could possibly be targeted to. As for this target, the term "Jakt" is not, and seems to have never been mentioned at the target page, making this a potentially confusing redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from the submission what the proposed disposition for this redirect is. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Jakt to my understanding is the language that was born out (and was used to write a portion) of the Serenity OS project, based on this info, I think this redirect makes sense, unless there is a more notable use the word "Jakt". Sohom (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiji （Limited express）

Page created with implausible characters in title and no meaningful content in its 3-edit history. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Wood（Bishop）

Sockmaster who created these redirects for reasons unknown, implausible use of full-width parentheses characters regardless. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdong Sports Park Stadium

I don't think it's even notable enough for a redirect to a former tenant. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Mexico-United States of America 2026 (Association football event)

Unlikely search term. If you know what you're looking for (the 2026 FIFA World Cup), you're unlikely to try to find it using this search. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually, when I searched Canada-Mexico-United States of America 2026 (Association football event) on Google, it does indeed show the 2026 FIFA World Cup search result. Thus, the result is Keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will show something based off the key words that are searched, but that doesn't mean it's a likely or useful search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally what people call it. Give it up, mate. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish with that comment, but I encourage you to stay on topic. It's unclear what you're even asking me to give up, considering I'm trying to engage in a discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal outright said that if the redirect was searched, you didn't believe it would show the intended article. Someone did the search and it showed the intended article. You then come up with a different reason to try and dismiss this. I am trying to assume good faith. It would be easier to do so if such... diversion... wasn't being used to try and get redirects you just don't seem to like deleted.
Because, here's the other thing I don't get, I will accept that you are unaware of the naming convention, but even if a lot of these redirects were not common names, they are still quite useful search terms - and even if you think not, at worst, they are not harmful (will not be mistaken as a redirect for something else), and so there is no valid deletion rationale. And yet, you want to delete them all indiscriminately. I don't get it. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I said this was an unlikely search term, not that the keywords, when searched, wouldn't bring up something relevant. I don't appreciate the accusation that I'm making inappropriate nominations because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you'd like to discuss the volume of nominations or my general competence then I encourage you to reach out on my talk page because I think this is getting off topic and we're conversing across several discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will, thank you. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kingsif, can you please provide evidence for your claim that it's literally what people call it.? Your curt "give it up, mate" comment makes it sound like it's obvious, but it's not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no valid deletion rationale in the original nom, I'd be more interested in Josh or yourself providing a reason this redirect actively should not exist. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: You state below that Based on how unlikely if not impossible it is that people will type even something close to that is a valid deletion rationale. That same argument is being used for this redirect. Redirects are kept based on usage. If you provide evidence for your claim that it's literally what people call it, then you are demonstrating that this redirect may be useful. On the other hand, language like "give it up, mate" has the opposite effect because it comes off as you not willing to have a civil discourse on the matter (subsequent responses show that may not actually be the case, but I do think it's important to point out how your comments can be perceived). -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That other discussion has eleven words in the redirect for discussion. It's quite different.
    Redirects are not kept based on usage, they are kept on utility or potential utility. The fact that somebody did the search (and I did again, just now) and it led to the right place shows that the redirect has potential utility. And while the most common shorthand names for this event that I've heard (in life) are "United 2026" (I think that's official branding) and "North America 2026" (perhaps because I'm in Europe), the "Canada-Mexico-USA bid" is also incredibly commonplace, e.g.: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Based on the searchability, it doesn't need to be a common name, but it is. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that redirects should be kept if they have potential utility, but I disagree that this redirect has any. Yes, I'm aware of the names that are branded, and when searching this earlier I did seen some usage for the bid having all three country names hyphenated. But I still don't see the event itself being referred to in this manner, and adding the non-standard disambiguation puts this firmly in the implausible column for me. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The extra disambiguation makes this an implausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or someone searching the rest of the title will have added confidence that the link is the right one when they see that disambiguation. Especially considering the event is mostly to be held in countries where the sport is not popular, IMO. It's not incorrect, so it's not misleading, so no reason. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Mexico-United States 2026

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. I can accept I may have been off the mark with this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement has a mandated six-year review that's scheduled for 2026 (Sunset clause section mentions this, but not explicitly the year). This, to me at least, was the expected result when I originally saw the redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Josh's apparent expectation seems so implausible (who searches for one of the periodic reviews of new NAFTA, let along expects it to exist, let alone to have its own dedicated redirect) that I have to believe he's simply made it up to try and add weight to his proposal that people might be searching for something else. Meanwhile, he is adamant on deleting every sports redirect on sight despite surely by now recognising these redirects are so widespread exactly because everybody (else) uses such names. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. Abhiramakella (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canada-Mexico-USA 2026 My searches show several uses of this phrase to refer to the World Cup. I'm not finding as many for the other two, so I will remain neutral on those. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle

Not mentioned at the target article. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. A. Russell: From what I know about Josh, I can guarantee you that this was not a bad faith nomination and I encourage you to withdraw that claim. "Not mentioned at the target article" is a very common rationale for deletion at RfD, and it comes down to a fundamental policy: WP:V. If this is indeed a common term used to describe the 2022 Peach Bowl, then this claim should be mentioned and sourced in that article in order to verify the redirect. If that cannot be done, then the redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is, in fact, a common term. Here is one evidence that Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle does indeed refer to the 2022 Peach Bowl: https://thetouchdown.co.uk/georgia-football-a-new-years-miracle/ Abhiramakella (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the subject instead of making this about persons. On the subject:

This is a redirect, not a proposal for article title. WP:COMMONNAME etc. doesn't apply.

I acknowledge that "Not mentioned at the target article" is erroneously mentioned often (too often, actually). It is nonetheless not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C. A. Russell: So it's okay for you to say, looks like a bad faith RFD (wikigaming), which is an aspersion about a person (namely, Hey man im josh). When I call you out on it, you insist to stick to the subject instead of making this about persons. Do you not see the hypocrisy there? Withdraw your aspersion and it won't have to be about persons. I'm also not sure why you mentioned that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply; it does not appear that anyone is trying to use it (and no, using the informal phrase 'common term' does not invoke WP:COMMONNAME precisely because this isn't an WP:RM). For what it's worth, I've stricken my use of 'common', it is not needed to make my point. The best way to combat "not mentioned at the target" is to fix the issue and mention it in the target, which will then resolve the potential WP:V violation (I'm using 'potential' because sources have since been found in this example). -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to combat "not mentioned at the target" is to fix the issue and mention it in the target

Right (in general—i.e. something which can be trivially resolved and doesn't merit a comparatively heavyweight response, which is why "not mentioned at the target" is such a poor reason to initiate RFD). The reality is that it's clear as-is upon reading the relevant article why the redirect is in place and doesn't even call for a character-for-character match of the name of the redirect at some place in the article text. I suspect the RFD arose from either not reading the article or, having read it, understood why the redirect is in place, but deciding to submit it to RFD anyway.

So it's okay for you to say, looks like a bad faith RFD (wikigaming), which is an aspersion about a person

Wrong. If you are involved in an accident and I am questioned when the police arrive or testify in court and in response to being asked what I witnessed leading up to the accident I state that it looked like the parties were engaged in streetracing before losing control and colliding, that's not casting aspersions (even if it does incidentally have personal consequences). It is a 100% subject-focused response. (Likewise, there's a distinction between my remarks and what you're doing here, for example.) So please, let's focus on subject that is the topic of this RFD and stick to merit-based arguments. If they are tangent to acts by persons, fine, but lets not go on tangents about persons. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy is not at all relevant. Bottom line: you falsely accused the nominator of bad faith in an attempt to poison the well, so you don't get to plead to "focus on the subject" when it was you who made it about the person. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C. A. Russell: Please withdraw the claim about this being a bad faith RFD / wikigaming. It's fine to disagree with the "not mentioned at target rationale", but it's not okay to cast aspersions. Redirects are, quite often, deleted because they are not mentioned at the target. As Tavix mentioned, this comes down to a verifiability issue. If the nickname is relevant (and a possible search term) then a variation of it should be mentioned in some capacity in the article at least once. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability and appearance within the article text are completely orthogonal.

Redirects are, quite often, deleted because they are not mentioned at the target.

Sure—in error. Procedural errors happen. All the time—in real world criminal trials, even, for example. Normalization of deviance is not the same thing as legitimization of deviance. Your arguments need to be rooted and stand on the merits. The notion that this happens all the time is something that somehow trumps proper RFD and obviates the need to provide a solid justification for deletions, especially when pressed on it, is a vacuous tactic on par with weasel words and citeogenesis.

If the nickname is relevant (and a possible search term) then a variation of it should be mentioned in some capacity in the article at least once.

If "not mentioned at target article" rationale is sufficient for deletion, the relevant policy docs and guidelines need to be updated to say so. As it stands, RFD hobbyists forming quorums and deleting redirects on those grounds alone are operating in contravention of policy (and good sense)—yes, even if they've done so a lot. The fact that no one is watching and/or doesn't feel it worth the battle to hold folks to account doesn't change that.
I'm not going to address a third time the attempt to force the focus on persons. Please stop. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan-Denmark-England-Germany-Hungary-Italy-Netherlands-Romania-Russia-Scotland-Spain 2020

Unlikely search term, doesn't seem like a helpful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like it; I don't like it either, too, however, this is actually listing the countries that have hosted the Euro 2020. I think it is best to keep it. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like something, I recommend you not create a redirect on it. Delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

France 2024 (Olympics)

I retargeted this to France at the 2024 Summer Olympics and was reverted. I believe my suggested target makes more sense given that the 2024 iteration of the Olympics is marketed as "Paris 2024", and not "France 2024". If I were to search Country YYYY (Olympics), I would expect to be redirected to Country at the YYYY Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This must be redirected to 2024 Summer Olympics, as it correctly identifies the event taking place in France (in this case, the Olympics). Also, to avoid this conflict, I recently created a redirect page called France 2024 (Olympics participation) and redirected it to France at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Thus the format must be Country YYYY (Olympics participation). Abhiramakella (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhiramakella: This event has not been marketed as "France 2024" and creating another redirect does not mean that it doesn't make sense to retarget this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ah-ah!

Delete. No mention at target article. Fails Google test. 162 etc. (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CountryName Year redirects to events

These titles are not unambiguously associated with the target events and would be more useful if redirected to YYYY in CountryName. However, in these cases, the YYYY in CountryName articles do not exist yet. Proposing that these are deleted until the year lists are created. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

France 2023 (Rugby event)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous to be a useful search term. Other possible targets may be included under Category:2023 in French rugby league, Category:2022–23 in French rugby union, and Category:2023–24 in French rugby union. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Josh, I think you might be the one person who has managed to go through life without seeing major sports tournaments called "Country Year" en masse, please stop nominating all these valid and useful redirects. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: It's fine to disagree with me, but I think it's inappropriate of you to ask me to stop nominating redirects which I don't believe are useful. I have quite the extensive history in reviewing redirects and this week was the first time I came across redirects like this. I still very much believe it's ambiguous and unhelpful.ese are entirely appropriate nominations and I stand by my statement that they're ambiguous and unhelpful. I reviewed tens of thousands of redirects last year alone, participated in RfD discussions, and closed discussions at RfD and have yet to come across redirects in these style. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's because I have come to RfD and seen in just today's log that it's all you nominating all of these, and with every new nom I found it more unbelievable, sorry about the first part of my comment being dismissive. However, I stand by the view that you shouldn't be nominating these - and certainly not so many at once.
    I'll take you at your word that you've never seen such common names for sports tournaments before, but if you have such an extensive track record in assessing redirects, do you not have the experience that if there are lots of identically-formatted redirects for similar events that's probably because it is what it looks like: common parlance. Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the logo refers to the event as "France 2023," this does not seem like an unlikely search term to me. I would imagine it would be the primary topic as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that aspect of it out to me @Presidentman, I'll be withdrawing this nom based on that. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Football Team (NFL Team)

I don't believe this is a helpful search term, despite the Washington Commanders briefly being named the Washington Football Team. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with you. I tend to think that anyone who might be inclined to use some form of "Football Team" to refer to the franchise would probably use the abbreviation "WFT," which was popular and common. Pretty much nobody ever used "Football Team" by itself because, notwithstanding the result of an RfC on Wikipedia regarding a grammar issue, just about nobody ever viewed those two words taken in isolation as the team's name. (That is, "Washington Football Team," sure. Just plain "Football Team," no—for example, nobody ever said "the Football Team and the Cowboys play twice every season." 1995hoo (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders (NFL Team) (2020-present)

Unlikely search term, especially with two disambiguators. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. The reason why I put Raiders (NFL Team) is to avoid confusion with similar teams of the same name. Also, the reason why I put (2020-present) is because the Raiders moved from Oakland in 2020. It is meant to be like that. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhiramakella: There is only one team named the Raiders, so there's not an issue with teams with a similar name. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I am taking about the Las Vegas Raiders. The reason why I put 2020-present is to avoid confusion with their former name the Oakland Raiders. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

Ambiguous term which could refer to a number of different events (see Category:2020–21 in English football, Category:2021–22 in English football, and Category:2022–23 in English football). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "England 2022" - sports events are known by their country-year shorthand name, and this was the only major football event to take place in England in 2022. Like other redirects of the same format, this should be kept, it's not ambiguous in the sense that nobody will mistake it (especially disambiguated with "association football event", emphasis mine) for any generic match.
Create disambiguation for "England 2021" - even though this event still has the England 2021 branding, it took place in 2022, while the Men's Euro 2020, which held most of its matches in England, in fact took place in 2021. Because of the possibility of confusing these similar events, the redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: "sports events are known by their country-year shorthand name" - I'm quite the sports focused editor and very active at redirect reviewing and this is not standard practice in my experience. You mentioned branding, do you have anything that supports "England 2022" as the branding used? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do you have anything that supports "England 2022" as the branding used? - the logo at the article in question, for one. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only a portion of the logo, I did find "Euro England 2022" when looking prior to and after this nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you go to the UEFA website for the Women's Euro, you will see that "UEFA Women's Euro" (the rest of the logo) is there by itself in the top corner. Hence, the branding for the event is what remains. Just going to also note that Euros also get called "Euro YEAR", which I have to assume is another redirect, but we're talking about this.
Trying to avoid the search results talking about England winning, there's e.g. this headline Will England 2022 be the best Women's Euros ever?. Useful redirect. IMO. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links, I'll dig into it a bit more when I'm back on PC. The entry for the FA Cup is coming up for me when searching but that doesn't mean you're not correct that it was used as a common name for the event. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite the sports focused editor and very active at redirect reviewing and this is not standard practice in my experience. - that seems... nigh-impossible, unless you only edit sports that do not have international tournaments. I considered maybe North America does not use such names and that's your blind spot (not a reason to delete, just a reason you wouldn't know), but then I typed in the first event I thought of (Qatar 2022) in a private tab, and CNN (North American) was the second non-Wikipedia result (A year on from Qatar 2022, what’s the legacy of a World Cup like no other?). It's how it is. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a blind spot for me and I'd prefer you not jump to conclusions about me. On my phone England 2022 actually brought up results for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't jump to conclusions, and I referred to a continent, not you, with one of the possibilities I considered. Good chat, man. Well, no. If you're trying to suggest that people would search "England 2022" to find out about Qatar 2022, I don't know if you're being facetious or you want to continue trying to deny the shorthand name's existence, but it's past the point of anything needed to be said. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that England 2022 should refer to the Qatar 2022 World Cup, I was just mentioning that it brought me a lot more results about the World Cup and didn't bring me to the target article. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. As for the RfD, I don't think that excludes it from being a relevant and useful redirect. Keeping the redirect might be helpful, in fact. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's cuisine

Seems like an unlikely search term Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butera (City)

Delete, Butera(City) is already at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23#Butera(City) but even this has a capitalization error per WP:RDAB, although the correct title Butera (city) doesn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheinhardt Wig Company

For fans of the show, this redirect's connection is obvious as Sheinhardt is mentioned throughout the show; however, a fan of the show would also know to search for 30 Rock if looking for information on the show. For others though, this redirect targetting 30 Rock without mention could confuse people who are looking for information on Sheinhardt only to see that it redirects to 30 Rock without an explanation as to the connection between the two. It seems that at List of 30 Rock characters#C. C. there is an explanation of Sheinhardt, but it's an odd target and if the page is restructured, which seems to happen often on list of character pages, then it could be back to not being helpful. I think it might be best that this redirect is deleted. TartarTorte 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm actually doing a rewatch of the show right now and it's hard not to notice how often the name of the company is brought up. It's the fictional subsidiary of GE / parent company of NBC in 30 Rock. My gut says it's a useful redirect because I actually planned on looking up whether it was a real company or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, I've been rewatching the show as well, which is how I came across this redirect and nominated it because there was sadly no information about Sheinhardt. I almost think that there should be a page for things in 30 Rock that aren't characters but are notable elements of the show to have their own article. Maybe Fictional corporations in 30 Rock and there could also be a section on Kabletown? I'm not sure if that would end up being able to be notable enough to be its own article, but the 30 Rock article itself is too large to fit it into in my view, so I think an article like that could be helpful just for readability purposes. TartarTorte 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Infamous PR

I had to move this article that was in draft space, into my user sandbox- to try and solve an ongoing issue with google having indexed the talk page of the draft- which obviously should not have happened, but it's been appearing in google search results for possibly a long time now. Apologies I can't link to the teahouse discussion when I previously raised this (as it's been archived now), but another editor kindly submitted a 'refresh search results' request to google, in the hopes this would help them realise they shouldn't have indexed that page. It's still showing in their search results, so we had also discussed me moving the draft elsewhere to see if that helped- so I've done this now, but feel it makes sense for the re-direct to just be deleted, so people don't keep getting directed to the draft talk content as if it's mainspace content.

Hopefully this makes sense? It's a really confusing issue that we haven't been able to get to the bottom of. I didn't want to request a deletion of the whole draft either, as this way the history is preserved. Editing84 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if an alternative to deletion would be for someone to tag the re-direct page with no-index? If people feel that the re-direct shouldn't be deleted? Just to prevent this taking up space as a potentially unnecessary RfD. I had originally just wanted to request a speedy deletion of the re-direct because it felt like a strightforward matter and I was the sole author of it etc, but was advised by a Teahouse responder to post here. Editing84 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism

Not discussed at target, outside of the mention of Sicut Judaeis and a brief mention of modern reconciliation efforts. See also the precedent from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 5#Christian opposition to antisemitism.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have bundled Christian opposition to anti-Semitism into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoneOm123

This name is not mentioned in any page on Wikipedia, and my searches only turned up an obscure Pinterest account. Also note Smjg's edit summary "completely inappropriate move". Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably should have been SD'd per R3 or something when the move was originally reverted. But it's a bit late now. As I search now, I get the obscure Pinterest account and DBpedia, which I can only make out to be a WP mirror of sorts. — Smjg (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Gunslingers

Seems that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and this should be converted to a disambiguation page, with San Antonio Gunslingers (indoor football) getting more views, but both have light traffic.[6] If the USFL team really is the primary topic, then San Antonio Gunslingers (USFL team) should alternatively be renamed to San Antonio Gunslingers instead. There are lots of incoming links to the current redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely every malformed disambiguation without parentheses

This is not how the disambiguator looks like, so I suggest a delete of all. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep those without punctuation, weak keep the others. These are plausible search terms for people looking for disambiguation pages (and yes, people do intentionally navigate to them). Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked all, no incoming links in articles, no views. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA, none appear to contain any useful history. Also delete Ebenezer Cook – Disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added Ebenezer Cook – Disambiguation to the nomination as it should be discussed in the same way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are atypical to the format that we use for disambiguation pages and keeping these types of redirects risks opening WP:PANDORA. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explicitly oppose the arguments citing PANDORA because it's irrelevant nonsense. Nobody has ever presented any evidence that demontrates that the existence of one redirect encourages the creation of redirects of a similar type, nor any evidence that deleting them discourages the creation of similar ones. Additionally, even if the influence does exist, it's irrelevant as we judge redirects on their own merits not on the merits of unrelated ones. In this case the benefit is clear (it allows readers to find the page they are looking for, lack of links is explicitly irrelevant) and there is no evidence of any harm caused by their existence - they aren't conflicting with anything, they aren't preventing people finding other things, they aren't misleading, and they're certainly not discouraging the creation of articles at these titles. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Would you support the mass creation of these types of redirects if someone requested a bot task to create the different variations for existing DABs? I'm of the mind set of "all of nothing" for improperly formatted disambiguations. If we want to allow these types of redirects then I think it'd be best to include them where possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not oppose the mass creation of such redirects, but I wouldn't actively support it either. I would support the creation of any specific ones that people felt useful (for whatever reason), but as with most redirects I don't see any significant benefit from the time and effort required for mass creation. If someone wants to put that effort in, I'm not going to stand in their way, but I just feel there are more productive uses for that effort. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, just wanted to gauge how strongly you felt. A bot task probably wouldn't be too much effort, but that's another discussion for another day. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think PANDORA does have a level of community consensus though I don't think it matters a huge amount for readers or editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on how the WP:PANDORA argument is employed; most of the time, I agree with Thryduulf's stance, but I do occasionally veer from that stance when the redirect is titled like a hot pile of garbage. For this case here, it may just be better to claim WP:RDAB issues and keep it moving. Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny sterling

"Penny sterling" more commonly refers to the subdivision of the currency, commonly used for stock quotations on the London Stock Exchange. This should point to Pound sterling#Currency code instead of the coin. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current target is not appropriate but am less sure about what it should be. If the reader wants the historical basis, then it should redirect to Pound sterling#Etymology (or maybe Pound sterling#Medieval, 1158). If the reader wants current usage, then Feminist's logic is correct. I suspect that WP:COMMON NAME would favour the latter. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beckett Theater

No mention of the topic on the target page Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamu

Search results seem to be primarily about the earbud brand. Rusalkii (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan's line

Primary topic from a quick search seems to be a diagnostic criteria of hip dysplasia (canine), not the eye folds. Our article on canine hip dysplasia doesn't seem to cover it, so no obvious redirect target, but I think it'd be confusing. Rusalkii (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to Hip dysplasia (canine) with a hatnote/callout in the vein of Template:distinguish pointing confused readers to the current target (Dennie–Morgan fold). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Day earthquake

There are a number of major earthquakes which happened on January 1, such as Galilee earthquake of 1837, 1996 Sulawesi earthquake, 1980 Azores Islands earthquake, and 2000 Kipawa earthquake. The redirect might cause confusion and should be deleted. Prefuture (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 T--C 04:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: As stated above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the above. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I mean, it's just a day? There's nothing significant about the fact that it's on a day of the year. It becomes incredibly inconvenient to maintain (every time an article is written on a January 1 earthquake, it needs to get added to the disambiguation page that people might not even know about). Earthquakes happen on New Year's Eve, Christmas and Valentine's Day too, but I wouldn't expect there to be pages dedicated to those topics, much less "January 2 earthquake", "January 3 earthquake", and etc. Then there's the other natural disasters, or even ANY recurring event that takes place on ANY random day. My stance is that there are no "New Year's Day earthquakes", just earthquakes that take place on January 1st, just as they take place on any other day in the calendar. I don't think this is a good dab-page precedent; search engines are built for these terms. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. Utopes' stance is a reasonable one for them to hold, but it's not one that is particularly relevant. What matters is that people, rightly or wrongly (and it is irrelevant to us which it is), do call an earthquake that happen on 1 January a "New Year's Day earthquake" and so that term is used to find articles on Wikipedia. They also do this with other named days, c.f. Good Friday earthquake, Boxing Day tsunami, etc. It is our job as Wikipedians to enable readers to find the content they are looking for as easily as possible when it is clear what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair as well, thank you for the links to parallel examples re:Good Friday earthquake and Boxing Day tsunami! I'm willing to retract my !vote in favor of a disambiguation at this title, as it seems that we do have other instances of disasters with the named date in front. Those look to be brought about by exceptional circumstances, and I can imagine this too being an exceptional circumstance as a major earthquake. Admittedly I'm somewhat worried about the implications that "as long as someone calls something [X], we must enable that term to find articles." because it justifies the existence of some nonsensical redirects for the sole reason that X people call something Y. People call things a lot of other things, but not all things need to be redirected. In any case, I can agree that disambiguation may be the safer play after all. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Disambiguate. The phrase is in use[7]. Several of the arguments here against are just odd, including one that amounts to an argument against disambiguation pages generally. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalonian bison that other Buffalonian bison bully also bully Buffalonian bison

Quite unlikely title/search term. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Seed

The target mentions a Joseph Seed, and then later on that Joseph has a brother named John, but doesn't use this name or discuss a character by this name in sufficient depth for this redirect to be useful. Various other articles mention other non-notable people with this name, so the video game character is unlikely to be the primary topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers

No mention anymore at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion of all. Veverve (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, at least for now. An article was created at Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers (LACV), moved to Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers and then merged to Lesnes Abbey Woods in 2008. The merged content was boldly removed from the target article (citing WP:BURDEN) 1 minute before the nomination here. 1 minute on google suggests that at least most of the content that was removed is easily verifiable, so whether it should remain is a matter of WP:DUE which needs discussion. Accordingly, I recommend keeping the redirects and restoring and sourcing the content without prejudice to a consensus discussion about whether the mention is DUE (based on 1 minute on google it's not obvious to me either way). If the outcome of that discussion is to remove mention, then the redirects can be nominated here (and will likely be deleted) but the current nomination is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1 minute on google suggests that at least most of the content that was removed is easily verifiable: there is zero secondary RS discussing the Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers. Thus, the content cannot and should not be restored. Veverve (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only notability requires sources be secondary and independent, verifiability of facts just requires reliability. Notability is completely irrelevant to the redirect and largely irrelevant to inclusion on another article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information supported by blogs about random volunteer groups is not to be kept. Notability has a role in those cases, we cannot add any random information simply because it is peripheral to the topic of the article. Veverve (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether the information is "random", "peripheral to the topic of the article" or any other epithets you wish to throw at it is a content matter that needs discussion on the article talk page and completely irrelevant to the redirect. If this group is mentioned on the target article the redirect should remain, if it isn't it shouldn't, however whether it should be mentioned is a matter for a consensus discussion on the article talk page first. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with the WP:CHALLENGE to remove this group in the article and a mention should not be readded without reliable sourcing. I see that such sourcing has not turned up. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:RGUIDE applies. Nominator's WP:NOTABILITY argument confuses Wikipedia's notability criteria and verifiability, the fact that a given phrase doesn't appear in the article is not sufficient to justify the deletion of a redirect (and the fact that the nominator is responsible for its removal is poor form, besides). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady returns to New England

Not a useful search term. He's returned several times, including to be honored by the team. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the second redirect was added late to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vick Licata

Can't find evidence, on the page or elsewhere, that he was ever called "Vick". Rusalkii (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this redirect as it was a common hypocorism. Bremps... 17:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAC2

"DAC" does not appear anywhere at the target article, much less DAC2. I did a lot of searches for this term and everything has come up blank; I do not understand this redirect. There's DAC 2015 for a Dota 2 championship, as well as DAC (disambiguation), but I don't think the current target is a good fit. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAC2 is a term commonly used to refer to the EU implementation of the Common Reporting Standard - this is referred to in Common Reporting Standard #Participants although it does not contain the specific phrase DAC2.
I’ll amend the CRS article to reflect this. Djw001 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a Template:Distinguish hatnote pointing to digital-to-analog converter and DAC (disambiguation). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down down deep in the ground is where his story stays, and etc.

These lines are not listed anywhere at the target article. Apparently seems to be an avoided double redirect, but the previous target did not seem to have these lines either. I'm not sure how likely of a search term these would be, or how helpful (or unhelpful) the lack of a mention at the target is. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1872-1915

Redirect from a page move. Does not meet any of WP:RPURPOSE to me. Likely satisifies R3, but it's not strictly a recent creation as "Pages older than about 3–6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently recreated" and 6 weeks have passed. 94rain Talk 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject 

Recently created cross-namespace redirect using an unlikely character, to WikiProject Apple. It does not seem as if this would be a worthwhile search term with the missing character at the end. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:NBL Canada

A CAT: PNR for a now-inactive WikiProject. It doesn't seem as if this title needs to remain as a redirect in mainspace, as it wouldn't be regularly used and does not follow a regular naming pattern for CAT: space redirects. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:UBX

I was very conflicted about this nomination admittedly, but I still feel as if it's the right call. The acronym of "UBX" is very much a shoe-in Wikipedia classic, in reference to it being short for userboxes. Obviously, the "Userboxes" category is a pretty important category, visited by people whenever they want to find something for their user page. This being said, I don't know how vital it is to have a PNR for this purpose.

This is not the type of category that needs to be maintained day after day and hawked for new changes. The people that would be visiting this category the most often would be people designing their user page, and in doing so, I don't think unfamiliar users would type in "CAT:Userboxes", using a pseudo-namespace yet keeping the rest of the title the exact same (This is the 2nd of 5 instances where this happens, with CAT:Chem being the first). Among these two, at least "CAT:UBX" is actually a shortcut, unlike the title that is just spelled out the exact same way as the category. But even then, this is just a category of decorations, and one not in need of occupying a mainspace PNR, much less two. Typing in "Category:Userboxes" works more than wonders, and is consistent with the rest of the pages in Category space. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:, because you wanted to know, this is another one of the 5 instances of a lowercase CAT: title. I was going to wait to respond to your question, as I was trying to consider the timing for future nominations. (Side note: While there are exactly four "Cat:" titles below, these I only recently found and were not actually factored into the remaining four "CAT:" titles statistic, just an ironic number similarity.) For full disclosure as I don't know if/when I'll nominate these, the three CAT titles that have lowercased names are CAT:Images, CAT:Incomprehensible, and CAT:NBL Canada. These, and the rest of the CAT: titles, are all viewable at Special:PrefixIndex, or this link just takes you to the search results: [8]. (Apparently there's one more that I haven't noticed until now, being CAT:MtW, but that one I'll have to assess the incoming links for). Utopes (talk / cont) 01:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm having a really hard time understanding why CAT:UBX was nominated, the nomination seems to demonstrate a solid explanation for its purpose. It sounds like you're making the bar for shortcuts way too stringent than it needs to be. I disagree that they are only needed for categories that need to be maintained day after day. If they are used, then that's good enough for me. And even if they aren't, unless there's some other problem with them they're harmless and should be left alone. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces states the CAT: PNR "may be used freely" for redirects to the category namespace so you need to demonstrate some actual (not just theoretical) harm caused by these redirects to justify deletion and show that that harm outweighs any usefulness. I'm not seeing any harm here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN and etc.

The entire set of "Cat:" prefix XNRs that aren't actual articles. Per Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" is not a valid pseudo-namespace or shortcut. The usage of "MoS" and "Mos" are already pretty controversial, but those are the only two types of lowercase PNR shortcuts that are currently permitted. Lowercase "cat" titles are generally not allowed to my understanding, and these have all been created from 2016 and onwards (as I presume the rest of the pre-2016 titles have been deleted via different discussions). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Race Change To Another

A redirect with this title was declined at WP:AFC/R back in September, at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2023-09#Redirect request: RCTA, Race Change To Another. It is a piece of slang originating from a Tiktok trend in 2022, and is not addressed at the target article. I don't think this is a helpful or useful redirect in its current state, as while comparisons have been drawn, the two terms do not seem interchangeable. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having this redirect for persons actually entering "Race Change To Another" is obviously better than not having it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn is Your Enemy

This is apparently a "sign-off bump" used by adult swim from 2005 to 2010, as learned from the "See also" section at Dawn (disambiguation) that was added in September and removed the next day. Nothing with this title appears at the target article of this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having no redirect here is worse than having a redirect to an article where it is not mentioned. (If it not being mentioned there is an issue, consider changing the article.) WP:RGUIDE applies. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly disagree with this. "Having no redirect here" IS better than having a redirect from an unimportant phrase used in the show, to an article where it holds no mention. The act of including this redirect implies that we have something to say about this, when we do not. "If not mentioned, change the article". No; there's no need to go out of our way to change the article to match every likely / unlikely redirect; it's the redirects that should have been matching with the current content of the article from the very beginning. Talking about quotes such as these at the target would not be worthwhile, as quotes from the show aren't important to be talking about. I have no interest in seeing this in the article, but if anyone adds reliable sources and wants to reintroduce this quote and redirect, feel free. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What quotes from the show? What show? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoom Shankar

Another similar situation, this actress appears across many different films and TV series covered on Wikipedia, including but not limited to 90 ML (2019 Tamil film), Payanigal Gavanikkavum, Teddy (film), and Dhanusu Raasi Neyargale. Redirecting to only one of these appearances does not tell enough about who this actress is, and it would seemingly be preferable to keep as a red link to encourage the creation of an article about this individual. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Solanki

Is featured in several movies and series, including but not limited to: Titli (2023 TV series), Bhaag Saale, Mayavi Maling, Imlie, and Sethji (TV series). Generally speaking, it is not helpful, and oftentimes misleading, to redirect actors or actresses to shows that they are cast in, unless for some reason it's the ONLY time they'll ever be mentioned on Wikipedia. Because this actress is covered across many different films and TV series, it's not great to redirect to only one of these occurrences (which doesn't really discuss her besides the fact that she was in it). In cases like these, it's more preferable to keep the title as a WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cs2

This redirect does not have a chemically accurate target. It was originally created with a target of Counter-Strike 2, before having its target changed in good faith to Carbon disulfide. However, as the "s" is a lowercase, it would not actually refer to carbon and sulfur, but instead Caesium. If a chemical target is maintained, Dicaesium (which is Cs2) already exists as a redirect. There's also CS2 (disambiguation), although none of the options there use a lowercase s, but its still a better alternative than where it's at currently I feel. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Whyte School

I'm not seeing this school (or this name for that matter) at the list in question. It doesn't seem as if we have any information on this topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep https://wwhyte.lssd.ca/ the school definitely exists in the area mentioned. Ideally this would point at an article on the school district, but while that's a red link pointing to the list seems like a reasonable compromise. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking the website that confirms its identity! That does help confirm that we're in the right general location. I still think it should be deleted though, given the lack of any encyclopedic information about this school. For people using this search term, I don't think it'll be the most helpful outcome to send them to a list of school districts where we don't have anything to say about not only the school, but the entire district as well. If it ever receives a wikilink in mainspace (which it does not yet have), its blueness implies that we have something to say about it & info at the title, which we don't. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state clearly what you do think will be the most useful outcome for people using this search term—and how the proposed action ("it should be deleted") effects that? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24&oldid=1199495509"