Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24

[edit]

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

Jakt

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Jakt

Kaiji （Limited express）

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Wilfred Wood（Bishop）

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Chengdong Sports Park Stadium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Chengdong Sports Park Stadium

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

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Canada-Mexico-United States of America 2026 (Association football event)

Canada-Mexico-United States 2026

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was 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

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
@C. A. Russell: I ask you against, withdraw the obviously inappropriate aspersions that you've casted. They've out of the blue, inappropriate, and entirely unsubstantiated. An experienced user such as yourself absolutely knows better and this comes across as personal when you make these types of statements. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I did find at least one mention of the term "Midnight Miracle" on its own in a RS: [1], but the exact phrasing from this redirect seems unlikely. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, attestation as a name for this event has not been verified with a sourced mention at the article. I let this one ride for a bit because I was hopeful a mention could be added, but I no longer enjoy that optimism. -- Tavix (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strawman. Attestation that "Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle" is another name for the 2022 Peach Bowl is completely absent from this discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no strawman, they voted based on it not being mentioned at the target. That's reasonable and normal. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tavix wrote "attestation as a name for this event has not been verified with a sourced mention at the article". There are several problems with that statement, but the most basic being that the only way for it to even be conversationally relevant[2] is if there were someone presently arguing that "[Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle is] a name for this event [i.e. 2022 Peach bowl]". But there isn't anyone arguing that. That's what makes it a strawman. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix et al. No evidence that "Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle" is a phrase which is ever used. "Midnight Miracle" has been used to refer to this game (among many other things!) but the phrase is not used at the target and the specific search term "Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle" seems implausible. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in the article, not a plausible search term. This redirect is worthless. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:58, 31 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).

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

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

France 2024 (Olympics)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#France 2024 (Olympics)

Ah-ah-ah!

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention at target article. Fails Google test. 162 etc. (talk) 20:00, 24 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).

CountryName Year redirects to events

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

France 2023 (Rugby event)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was 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)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Raiders (NFL Team) (2020-present)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Raiders (NFL Team) (2020-present)

England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2#England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

Hitler's cuisine

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Hitler's cuisine

Butera (City)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Butera (City)

Sheinhardt Wig Company

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2#Sheinhardt Wig Company

Draft:Infamous PR

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was revert move. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Second ping to JJMC89 (The earlier ping was at Steel's RfU discussion - archived here), who had deleted Christian opposition to antisemitism in 2019. Can you restore the page (and more importantly, its history), and we can bundle it to the discussion here? Jay 💬 08:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you or anyone else wants to challenge the previous RfD, the correct venue is DRV, not this RfD. If someone is going to actually complete the merge per the 2007 AfD and needs the content, let me know. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJMC89: The instructions at DRV are: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. and that is what I was doing. The forum for that discussion doesn't have to be the closer's talk page, and I saw the RfU, and now the RfD as relevant forums. In any case, the takeaway is that the prior content can be made available in some form to satisfy either the REDLINK or the standalone article suggestions. Jay 💬 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could equally likely be treated at the current target or at Anti-antisemitism. The latter feels more appropriate to me, perhaps because the article is shorter now. With a few scatted references to the subject across multiple articles, search results are more helpful to the reader than the status quo. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 7 February 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).

NoneOm123

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 15:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

San Antonio Gunslingers

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 17:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.[3] 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]

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).

Absolutely every malformed disambiguation without parentheses

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Penny sterling

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was agreement that Pound Sterling should be the target, however 4 different sections of the article were suggested for refining. Retargeting to Pound Sterling as the broad target. The discussion on refining may be continued at the new target's talk or another forum. Jay 💬 17:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

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).

Beckett Theater

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Theatre Row Building#Theatres. ✗plicit 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the topic on the target page Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:50, 24 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).

Pamu

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31#Pamu

Morgan's line

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Hip dysplasia (canine)#Symptoms. Jay 💬 17:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

New Year's Day earthquake

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2#New Year's Day earthquake

Buffalonian bison that other Buffalonian bison bully also bully Buffalonian bison

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 10:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unlikely title/search term. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:09, 24 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).

John Seed

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore without prejudice to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 15:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. With the removal of relevant content at the target having gone uncontested for a full month now, the rationale of the first keep !vote no longer holds, although its concern regarding the speed with which this was brought to RfD were valid at the time that this discussion began. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
the fact that a given phrase doesn't appear in the article is not sufficient to justify the deletion of a redirect: it absolutely is a good argument. If a topic is not mentioned in a targeted article, then the redirect mentioning this topic is misleading. There are deletions of redirects for this very reason all the time. Veverve (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect not appearing in an article is not a sufficient reason on its own to justify deletion. If it were Category:Redirects to an article without mention would not exist. It is true that redirects that aren't mentioned are frequently deleted, but they are deleted for reasons additional to not being mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects to an article without mention is a maintenance category. It lists redirects in which an action is needed—such as adding a mention at the target article, finding a better target, or listing at RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect. While there are probably redirects in there that need some action, there are many redirects that do not (also note that every redirect category is classified as a maintenance category, even ones like Category:Redirects from synonyms where (almost?) none require action.). The first example I found was the result of an RfD consensus: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Double redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a bit off-topic, but if a category is not for Wikipedia maintenance, then it should not be tagged as a maintenance category. Per WP:PROJCAT, the correct terminology for a non-content category is "administrative category" and "maintenance category" is a subcat therein. As for Double redirect, the obvious solution there is adding a mention to the target (and this was suggested at the RfD). -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose recategorising some or all redirect tracking categories, then do feel free but this is the wrong venue. As for double redirect, it was indeed suggested but the consensus of the discussion was that it wasn't required. It is also far from the only time when consensus has concluded that a mention is not required. All this is getting well into the weeds, but it does prove my (and @C. A. Russell's) point that lack of mention alone is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. In many cases a lack of mention is a reason why a redirect is confusing, misleading, or otherwise problematic but it is for those reasons, not the lack of mention, that we would delete the redirect.
C. A. Russell comment about the fact that the nominator is responsible for its removal is poor form also ties in with my original "keep, at least for now" recommendation (emphasis added). If you BOLDLY remove material from an article, you need to allow a reasonable time for other editors to challenge the removal of that material before deleting (or proposing deletion) of redirects or other things that depend on the removed material. How long "reasonable" is depends on several factors, including how active the article is (e.g. it's far shorter if the article is about a popular culture thing that is currently in the news than if the article is about an obscure 18th century novel for example), how widely advertised the change has been and how significant the change was. However, in the absence of very significant BLP issues it's always going to be longer than the few minutes allowed for here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not proposing recategorization, I'm explaining how maintenance categories are defined. For what it's worth, I have resolved the {{R without mention}} of Double redirect. I also discovered Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Double redirects which resulted in delete. It does appear you have WP:CHALLENGE backwards—the challenge is the removal of the content, not a hypothetical reversal of that action. In order to restore that information, it needs to be by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Until or unless that happens, the redirects should be deleted because they're not supported by the target. Of course, if someone is able to correctly re-add material that is supported by reliable sources, then these redirects can and should be restored or recreated. -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until or unless that happens, the redirects should be deleted because they're not supported by the target.

That doesn't track with actual WP policy and guidelines on redirects. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:VAGUEWAVE, but as I explained the policy invoked is WP:CHALLENGE. -- Tavix (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who has the burden in the case of a challenge, you have to actually give them an appropriate amount of time to (a) notice that the content has been removed, (b) engage in any discussion required to clarify why it has been removed (verifiability is not the only reason why something may be removed, nor was it why this was removed - nobody is disputing that this group exists only whether mention is DUE), (c) look for any sources that are needed and add them to the article if required. Additionally, even if the content is removed by consensus (silent or otherwise) that's not necessarily a reason to delete a redirect in every case (which is why it is not a speedy deletion criterion). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The time is being given in the RfD discussion (which is coming up on a month now!). Anyone who wants to keep these redirects can and should take the effort to track down sources to support the redirects. If that can be done, and the content readded to the target appropriately, then my rationale for deletion would be negated. As for nor was it why this was removed, this is exactly why the content was removed; the diff is "unsourced (WP:BURDEN)". -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 29 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).

Tom Brady returns to New England

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Vick Licata

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 10:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

DAC2

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#DAC2

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

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

1872-1915

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Wikiproject 

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

CAT:NBL Canada

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

CAT:UBX

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#CAT:UBX

Cat:NN and etc.

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep Cat:NN, delete the rest. ✗plicit 11:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Race Change To Another

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31#Race Change To Another

The Dawn is Your Enemy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31#The Dawn is Your Enemy

Masoom Shankar

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Neha Solanki

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Cs2

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Cs2

Walter Whyte School

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Walter Whyte School

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24&oldid=1204465356"