Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

December 17

edit

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

Thunder Only Happens When It's Raining

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 25#Thunder Only Happens When It's Raining

Color graphics

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Color graphics

King of Germany

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 List of German monarchs. Absent further participation after 2 relists, consensus seems clear that the List of German monarchs page is more useful to readers, even though it contains people whose title was not explicitly "King of Germany". Legoktm (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of German monarchs, its original target. This redirect has been contentious almost since its creation. Multiple users have swapped it between these two targets over the years. The list is a more useful target for readers than the article about an official title, especially given the contexts in which the term is likely to be linked. It is also more consistent with all the other redirects to the list. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, I fully agree with the points made by Srnec. I'll add that the list of the Kings of the Romans is also included in the page of German monarchs, so I don't see a big problem for those who type King of Germany and expect to find it.
Barjimoa (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these monarchs were kings before and beside being Emperor. Some bore the title "King in Germany". Str1977 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument is now at whether an Emperor is a King, and whether King of Germany is different from German king.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Nihali language/archive

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 move without leaving a redirect to Nihali (language). Though the discussion has been a little muddled, I see agreement that the history should be preserved in some way. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a somewhat confusing history here, but if I'm correctly reading the long-ago actions of Nat Krause and Kwamikagami, this page's historical content was all merged into Kalto language. (See that article and Nihali language for information on confusion between the two.) So move without redirect to Kalto (language), an available redlink. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was always about Nihali, with only some spurious admixture of data from Kalto, so moving the page history to Kalto-anything wouldn't be appropriate IMO. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Was any of its content actually merged anywhere? If not, it can just be deleted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a place to store the page history, because I didn't know how to merge the histories without creating a mess. I didn't think we should delete because it is a record of edits going back to 2004. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but, edits to which page? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit history. When Scythian99 created it back in 2004, it started "Nahali (or Nihali, also known as Kalto) is a language isolate spoken in ..." When Dbachmann revised it in 2007, it started "Nihali is a language isolate of India," had an ISO code of iso3=nll, and ref'd Kuiper (1962) Nahali: A Comparative Study. It remained basically the same until it was merged. So it's always been about the language isolate [nll], and Uanfala's suggestion below would work. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see Nat Krause having merged the contents to any page although the edit summary says merging to Kalto language. Delete or move without redirect to Nihali (language). Jay 💬 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay, isn't this the diff of the merge? – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had seen this but didn't think this was the merge as I was expecting all the content removed from here to be there. Looking at your diff again closely, it looks like two lines from the source were combined and added as this line to the destination: Further hypotheses involve possible connections to the Andamanese languages and the controversial Indo-Pacific phylum. At the time of the merge, the destination was called Kalto, had content about Kalto, and the redirect also happened to Kalto, so will agree with what Tamzin said, and disagree with Kwamikagami's statement of The article was always about Nihali. The destination was then moved to Nihali, and the content rephrased to Nihali, and the merged content finally removed as undue weight. Striking off my delete vote. I'm fine with Uanfala's suggested title also. Jay 💬 02:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a passing note (though that's probably not relevant): as far as I can see from the article's history, it has always been about the language isolate Nihali, despite being some time titled "Kalto" (a title which later got used for an article about an unrelated Indo-Aryan language). – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Move without redirect or outright delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move (in order to preserve the venerable old history: even if the merged text is no longer present in the current version of Nihali language, it's still of at least historic interest) to Nihali (language isolate) (weakly preferable to the alternatives because it keeps the title unambiguous and follows the common pattern of disambiguating languages by family in parentheses) without leaving a redirect behind (subpages don't exist as such in mainspace, and this has the potential to get in the way of reader searches). – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Talk:Nihali language/archive and note its existence on the talkpage (using {{merged-from}}). History of merged material must be kept per Wikipedia:Merge and delete and the legal requirements of the licensing conditions. However, this should not be in mainspace as it is not a valid search term and sub-pages are not permitted in mainspace (the "/" does not create a sub-page, that feature is deliberately turned off in mainspace).
    I really don't understand the logic behind the suggestion to restore as an article. That is entirely contrary to WP:CFORK unless I am missing something here. SpinningSpark 11:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is suggesting restoring the article. What is proposed is moving it to a different redirect, for the same reasons that you lay out. Keeping it in mainspace, I believe, is less confusing than crossing over into a talk subpage (which among other things could later get in the way of archiving). There's no need for {{merged-from}}: the merged content was minimal, and it has long been removed from the article. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. No one suggested a restore. It has been a redirect since 2008 and will continue to be so. Jay 💬 12:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Market study

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 Market analysis. signed, Rosguill talk 22:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could also equally refer to Market analysis. Steel1943 (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Market analysis. Market research is usually product/customer centered, whereas market analysis is market-centered. By a quick skim of Google scholar, "market study" matches the latter better. DFlhb (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Zimbabzwe

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. Consensus appears that it is a common enough misspelling to merit having a redirect for. Legoktm (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Adding an extra z way after the first z seems pretty implausible. TartarTorte 02:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparison of all the noun misspelling redirects to this country since the creation of this one on March 25: [1]:
Misspelling redirects that are nouns
Page Views since March 25
Zimbabwe (correct spelling) 1311249
Dzimbabwe 14
Zimbabwae 40
Zimbabwei 20
Zimbabzwe (this redirect) 75
Zimbawe 198
Zimbobwe 9

Zimbabzwe received 75 pageviews, second-most among the misspellings, but the bulk of these were in the month or so after its creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - looking online this seems like a very common misspelling. Note that at least one of the above mentioned "misspellings", Dzimbabwe, appears to be an alternate spelling rather than an incorrect one (before someone rushes off to nominate them all). A7V2 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I couldn't rule out that Dzimbabwe' is a spelling in a local language. I am now inclned to weak keep this one, as it is still more commonly used than some of the other redirects when I begin at a cutoff of May 11 — can't remember which ones, though. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unlikely typo or very common misspelling?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as search results show it to be an existant typo. I think I may have actually made this specific typo before; it's like my fingers don't like the word Zimbabwe, not coping with the b and w one after the other. It's hard to type quickly (YMMV of course), so we should be a bit more lenient here. Or, it could also be an actual misspelling. J947 † edits 21:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to why it hasn't been previously-created or much used, my explanation is that it's a typo easily spotted and corrected in publishing – whereas the reader searching it on Wikipedia does not have a second shot to spot their error. Anyway that whole line of reasoning based on creation date isn't very important IMO as there are many fewer redirects on the site than there should be, which is something I think everyone here would agree with. (Press this link once or twice and see if there's a redirect for the person's full name, including middle name. This applies for misnomers as well he says confidently.) J947 † edits 23:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The fact that this redirect was recently created (in March 2022) makes me think this misspelling isn't as common as others have pointed out. And if it were, then why wasn't it created sooner? I'm not convinced. CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Seven News Regional

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 Seven News#Regional bulletins. Legoktm (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page doesn’t make sense to myself because it targets Prime7 News. My suggested target is Seven News#Regional bulletins because it lists all the regional bulletins produced by Seven News including the former Prime and GWN bulletins. Redirects with the titles Seven News regional bulletins and Seven News Regional NSW will be created after this discussion concludes. Seven News regional bulletins will target to the same target as my suggestion for this redirect which is Seven News#Regional bulletins while Seven News Regional NSW will target Seven News#Regional New South Wales. All you fellow Wikipedians comment on this discussion with your opinion on this redirect. Bassie f (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Solangi

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 25#Solangi

Lack of skin pigment

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. Two articles were considered as target candidates but were found lacking. No prejudice against recreation of the redirect if / when any of the candidates or any other article is found to be suitable. Jay 💬 12:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not sure if a multi-word phrase like this can or should be disambiguated, and if not, deletion is probably the best path. In any case, albinism is not the only condition responsible for lack of skin pigment, so this is inaccurate to keep the way it is. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Maybe retargeting to a more general article is an option. Depigmentation or Pigmentation disorder by the titles seem like good candidates, but they are a bit lacking. Pigmentation disorder is a stub and doesn't explain common pigmentation disorders. Though it hosts the useful, but hard to navigate Pigmentation disorder template. Depigmentation leads well with a quick summary of common disorders, but devolves into thinly veiled advertisement for skin whitening procedures. That article might need to be brought to discussion for deletion. ― Synpath 19:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Running Wild (1992 film)

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. Editors remain uncertain as to which years are correct for this film's release; there is no consensus for deletion pending the resolution of the underlying question, which can be taken up at the article talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. A 1992 film by that title seems to have existed but I'm confused about its relationship with the 1995 one. Rusalkii (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - From the article's creation in 2007 until the recent move by Freshh in October the current target said that whatever movie it is about was released in 1992. Potentially the move should be reverted? The sources cited in the current version contradict eachother on the year. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMDb says 1995. Also a 1994 article says that Brooke Shields was shooting the movie that year, so it couldn't possibly be a 1992 film. Freshh! (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically it is mentioned in the article, in reference #2 that points to an archive of the NYT, which claims it's a 1992 film. OTOH the Bangor Daily News article from 1994 is also rather convincing. I think it's probably more important to figure out what year the movie was actually released in, ensure the title is there, and then delete incorrect redirects. Legoktm (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until new information comes to light. The end credits show COPYRIGHT 1994 LEOPARD ENTERTAINMENT (PTY) LTD. The Turner Classic Movies official website reference at the article shows it as 1995. Jay 💬 07:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Deputy sheriff

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 Sheriff. Consensus is clear that they should all target the same destination. It was convincingly argued that "deputy sheriff" is not unique to the US, so Sheriffs in the United States is an inappropriate destination. Legoktm (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should all target the same place... where that should be, not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist for visibility, and since consensus is still up in the air.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should all target the same place. Sheriffs in the United States#Sheriff's offices is much better, but other countries have or have had the position (e.g. UK: [2], Sheriffs in New Zealand). So, reluctantly, all should probably go to Sheriff even though "deputy" is not mentioned in that article. MB 05:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per MB, they should all target the same place. I find it hard to believe that deputy sheriff's only exist, or have only ever existed, in the US context. But since we don't seem to have any information on Wikipedia about any other kind of deputy sheriff, then that's where teh redirects should go. SpinningSpark 15:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go since participation has been limited, and the US vs non-US argument is unresolved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Densiometer

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 speedy delete. Per author and requester request, i.e WP:CSD#G7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly suggested this redirect last night without reading closely enough; these are not equivalent, and this is not the US spelling for densitometer but rather a different tool altogether. Second Sender (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Video hardware

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 25#Video hardware

Device ID

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 25#Device ID

Founding Fathers

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 Founding Fathers of the United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, I'd say every one of the 88 articles that contain this link actually mean Founding Fathers of the United States; and it seems highly likely that anyone searching for this term would be looking for the US founding fathers too. It's clearly the primary topic, so the redirect should lead there. A hatnote on List of national founders should be added at the same time. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the US Founding Fathers may be widely known, Canada, the EU &c all variously call their male founders the 'Founding Fathers'. Anyone redirected to list of national founders will see at the hatnote "For the founding fathers of the United States, see Founding Fathers of the United States", so it's a non-issue anyways. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We shouldn't assume that people are looking for the US Founding Fathers, when other countries also use this name, and there's a helpful list article that covers all of them. For people wanting the US one, it's one extra click from the list to the US article. The fact that 88 articles contain a possibly incorrect link is irrelevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Founding Fathers of the United States (I'll abbreviate that to FFUS). Search and incoming links suggest that FFUS is a primary topic by both usage and long-term significance. The incorrect links indicate that authors of 88 articles expected FFUS to be the primary topic, so any other target would be a WP:SURPRISE for our readers. We should also consider retargetting Founding fathers (lc f). Certes (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus still split...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah

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 Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. There was opposition to the suggested disambiguation page target, provided there was further discussion on it. Subsequent discussion suggested that the disambiguation page may be organized, cleaned up, better worded, retitled, in addition to any retitling of the disambiguated entries. Jay 💬 13:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we care for consistence on this project, this should be best targeted to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, which is currently a disambiguation page, and this spelling is just an alternate spelling. Having it redirected to Barelvi is not just confusing but in my opinion something that is against WP:NPOV since there are so many groups and Muslim sects that are termed/referred to as Ahlus-sunnah Wal Jam'ah (that is why we have disambiguation), and in that case having this alternate spelling to Barelvi appears to be problematic. I suggest retargeting it to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there's not a lot of consistency in general around this term, but I oppose this redirect for now until the disambiguation page itself is better discussed. The disambiguation page currently redirects to several other pages with extremely close spelling variants including Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, which is exactly the same as the disambiguation page's title, just with a lower case 'w'. As it stands, "Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah" is a fairly distinctive spelling relative to the other entries on the disambiguation page, and is attested by the Oxford Dictionary of Islam Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is really weird to trust this source in these matters. Ironically, it calls the people following the thought of Ahmad Raza Khan to be the founders of Darul Uloom Deoband. It says, "Indo-Pakistani reformist ulama movement centered in the Dar al-Ulum of Deoband. The school was founded (1867) by scholars associated with the thought of Sayyid Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi to preserve the teachings of the faith during non-Muslim rule.". If we are going to trust this one source, the whole demography of Deobandi and Darul Uloom Deoband articles would change. So, let's just leave this and discuss what we have to do with all the different variants of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'h. Pinging @Apaugasma for their helpful and insightful comments. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ahl al-sunna wa ’l-djamāʿa, an early, mainly political, designation of one of the warring parties at Ṣiffīn mentioned above. This designation survived in a number of biographical notices devoted to 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th century traditionists who were labelled as ṣāḥib sunna or ṣāḥib sunna wa-djamāʿa. The term ṣāḥib sunna is another such early self-designation; from the same article: One individual from among the ahl al-sunna was called a ṣāḥib sunna. Probably the earliest definition of a ṣāḥib sunna is attributed to Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181/797 [q.v.]).
When a modern movement or organization calls itself ahl al-sunna wa-l-jama'a this functions as a claim of representing the early, 'original' Sunni tradition, going all the way back to the Battle of Siffin (657; in reality Sunnism is of course a product of the late 8th/early 9th century). Ultimately though the expression is simply an elaborate synonym for 'Sunnis'. Several organizations with this name are listed at Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (which should be moved to Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jama'a per WP:MOSAR), but I don't believe any of these organizations is the primary topic, and given its fundamentally ambiguous nature I think the expression itself should absolutely stay a disambiguation page. Any alternative transliteration (see Template:R from alternative transliteration) should redirect to that disambiguation page: people will type in the expression or names of the organizations in all kinds of transliteration systems (the fact that this concerns transliterations and not simply 'spellings' is relevant) that they are personally most familiar with, so whenever they don't hit the exact spelling used by the organization itself they should be redirected to a disambiguation page to make sure they arrive at the right one.
So basically, support retarget to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah as proposed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iskandar323 and Apaugasma: I've read this discussion a few times now, and I'm still not clear on what "support" or "oppose" mean. Preferred words for clarity on RFD are "keep", "delete", "retarget", etc. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that; struck & replaced. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nomination and per above concerns.--TheEagle107 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Iskandar323 and dozens of available sources available at Barelvi and its talk. Maliner (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources would that be? Sources which mention that the Barelvi movement is sometimes also called (by its own adherents) Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jama'a, or sources which establish that the Barelvi movement is the most common and notable referent (i.e., the wp:primary topic) for the expression Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jama'a? I see only sources of the former kind, but it's the latter kind of sources (or statistical data) that would be needed to ground your !vote here in the existing guidelines for disambiguation. The other movements and organizations listed at the disambiguation page proposed as a target by OP have equally strong claims as a referent for the expression, to say nothing about the primary meaning of the expression as a synonym for Sunni Islam (which without question is primary with respect to long-term significance, and probably also with respect to common usage). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apaugasma presenting few sources from Talk:Barelvi for clarification
    • Ahle Sunnat-Energizing Faith in Rough times. Chapter 6, Book-Syncretic Islam: Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi By Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh.
    • “In the Path of the Prophet: Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and the Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jamaat Movement in British India, c. 1870-1921” by Usha Sanyal
    • Source relevant to Bangladesh.
    • book by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan.
    • Moj, Muhammad (1 March 2015).The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-78308-446-3. Archived from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 11 December 2022.
    • Dressler, Markus; Geaves, Ron; Klinkhammer, Gritt (2009-06-02). Sufis in Western Society: Global Networking and Locality. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-10574-8.
    • AbiiSulaymiin, AbdulHarnid A.; Aasi, Ghulam-Haider; Blankinship, Khalid; e, Ola Abdel-Kawi and James f i l; Ali, Hassan Elhag; Siddiqui, Dilnawaz A.; Poston, Larry. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 8:3. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).. Clearly mentions that " Barelvi" is the term used by opponent of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat. Maliner (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Requesting @Iskandar323 to verify the sources. Please ping me if there any potential problem. Maliner (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      These are all sources of the former kind I mentioned above. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how we determine a primary topic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, although I agree that it might be helpful to reorganize the disambiguation page somehow. Perhaps a note on the dismbiguation page warning the reader that the various pages are all variant transliterations of the same Arabic phrase? An better wording on the various pages' hatnotes? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

DWPJ

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#DWPJ

Western education

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 Education. Jay 💬 13:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a super-specific redirect of a very general term PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Diffuse term

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Diffuse term

Draft:Mission: Impossible – Fallout (soundteack)

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 12:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo in draftspace. No practical use. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Crotch bulge

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 Crotch. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crotch bulge is a broader concept than just camel toe. Specifically, there is ~50% of the population covered by the former and not the latter. Suggest retarget to Crotch, which covers the term more broadly (albeit briefly) and which still links to Camel toe. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

List of ancient Jedi

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 05:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is fully protected due to page history. Due to the subject matter, I am requesting that this page be redirected to Jedi#Jedi Archives, as that is the closest place I can find that discusses the ancient Jedi. The list of Star Wars characters page does not do so. If anyone has a better suggestion, that would be great. I submitted an edit request, but I was turned down and told to come here. Gotta love bureaucracy complicating simple requests. TNstingray (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see how a redirect to Jedi#Jedi_Archives would be helpful to someone who is looking for a list type of article. Perhaps a redirect to Jedi#Members in general would be fine, but simply prefer deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep it was kept because the content was merged. Retention of the history would be required for attribution. However what was the merged content, and does it still exist? Presumably it did exist and is still accessible in the history of List of Star Wars characters. Then deletion of the redirect and its history would lead to a copyright infringement by the deleting admin, so I suggest Keep until it is proved that no content was merged. Though I agree with Natg 19, that redirects to either target are pretty useless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that a merge happened. Eusebeus redirected it on Mar 23, 2009, but there was no merge to the target at the time, nor did he merge it to any other target. Probably he was only repeating an earlier redirect by Bryan Derksen (Jan 31 30, 2008). Bryan Derksen also did not merge to any other target, nor was the target having any merge. In fact, the article had been deleted by then by Jreferee as part of the close at WP:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Jedi, but for some reason Bryan restored the article with summary 1,102 revisions restored: redirected, no reason to keep history hidden.. As part of the restoration, the page's history may have messed up. The page shows as deleted on Oct 3, 2007 and undeleted on Mar 6, 2008. However, Bryan's redirect shows on Jan 31 30, 2008 which I can't explain. However it appears to have been an individual admin decision to reverse another admin's close, so I would recommend Delete. Jay 💬 15:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what happened is Bryan Derksen created a new redirect on Jan 31 30, then may have realized it was a page with history, and may have made an individual admin decision to restore the history. Jay 💬 02:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: From my perspective, I believe that there might be a bit more to this. On January 30th, 2008, Bryan Derksen apparently restored both List of ancient Jedi and List of Ancient Jedi. (Diff of ancient Jedi.) Another user (User:PhilKnight?) put a deletion notice on Ancient Jedi. (Possibly PhilKnight based on this edit.) User:Hmwith then deleted Ancient Jedi on Feburary 4th. (Apparently can't link to stuff in the Public Logs.) This left ancient Jedi untouched with a redirect to Jedi#Major Jedi. (Jedi had a section on ancient Jedi at the time.) Bryan comes back to this on March 6th and restores the edit history for ancient Jedi. (Interestingly, there was an Administrator's noticeboard discussion involving Bryan a week after this about restoring an article that went through the AfD process and bringing it back as a redirect. Bryan was deemed to be in the right in that situation as the restoration was related to the edit history.) It seems like the reasoning for the redirects and restorations might have had something to do with attribution. As far as I can tell, none of the information in the original article was moved/copied off-wiki or otherwise used elsewhere on the wiki, but it is possible that it existed at the time and has been deleted. Though, this is a guess that lacks proof. Given that Bryan was linking to the Jedi article, maybe it just had to do with the fact that 13 of the linked Ancient Jedi were originally linked to the Ancient Jedi article. This is as far as I could figure things out, but I think there was more intent in that redirect than what it currently looks like.
    To go a bit beyond: DocumentN makes the link point closer to the proper location in April (but also adds the merge notice for some unclear reason), the Jedi article was mostly nuked in late June by a user later banned as a sockpuppet (including part of the Ancient Jedi section), The Ancient Jedi link gets revived on August 1st by another sock account, an IP address removes the last mentions of the Ancient Jedi from the Jedi article on August 3rd, and both User:Eusebeus (for ancient Jedi) and User:OlEnglish (for Ancient Jedi) making the first edits to each post-2008 to try to mend the redirects. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the bundled one as well, per the others. Jay 💬 06:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking up the AN discussion, and other pointers. If we're looking for proof, we should be looking for content from the redirect's history that was merged to any other article, and I could not find proof of that, as mentioned above. However, I do not mind restoring the (lowercase ancient) redirect for improvement or AfD, per my note below. Jay 💬 19:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, even if there is proof, it is likely that it is long gone or buried very deeply somewhere. Since the content doesn't seem to exist anywhere else based on our searches, it is likely reasonable to just say that the odds the material was improperly transferred and exists elsewhere in some format is nearly non-existent. I felt though that I should mention the possibility given what happened around that time. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term and nothing very relevant at the target. Jontesta (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that List of Ancient Jedi redirects to Jedi#Jedi Archives. It may be bundled here. Jay 💬 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling List of Ancient Jedi as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tthis is a bit of a mess due to how long ago things happened and actions taken since that 2007 AfD. Part of the problem is that there is "List of Ancient Jedi" which was the original article and "List of ancient Jedi" which is where that was moved to. To be 'somewhat' brief, there was a purge in fictional Star Wars lists in the second half of 2007, which appears to be partly based on the old policy of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and partly because of an article written on another website critiquing Wikipedia called "The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries". Some of the AfDs for those other Star Wars lists link back to the 2007 AfD. It should be noted that the old Notability for fiction policy was problematic enough to undergo multiple rewrite attempts and proposals between 2007 to 2011, with it now having the sentence: "Several attempts have been made to establish specialized guidelines to cover the notability of fictional elements within Wikipedia. Until there is a successful proposal to treat fiction in a specialized way, consult other policies and guidelines for guidance on a wide range of topics, including fiction. Existing policies and guidelines have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow."
Personally, I think my recommendation for this situation would be for the Jedi article to briefly cover the subject of Ancient Jedi (with Ancient Jedi redirecting to the Jedi article) or have a standalone article regarding the Ancient Jedi that can be linked to on the Jedi article, provided that there is enough content for a standalone article. (As an aside, there are at least a dozen current or former ancient Jedi mentioned at List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters, though the article currently does not mention this. In fact, the only mention of time is the small potion "set 4,000 years before the Star Wars films" in the lede, which makes it unlikely to be suitable as a redirect for this subject. However, given that article alone, I believe that there could be enough content for a Ancient Jedi article.) --- As for the redirects, it might be possible to restore the original list and significantly update it to modern policy, but that would at least require overturning a 15 year old AfD. I don't know if there is a method to doing so given the length of time nor if there are good enough reasons to do so. While at least one of the guidelines at the time of the AfD is no longer relevant, there could be other guidelines and policies at play that would discourage such a list. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your last points appear to be a vote for "restore and expand", but at the same time you are unsure what notability guidelines have changed the last 15 years, so it also appears to be a vote for "restore and discuss again at AfD". So yes, either of these options will "overturn" the AfD, and this RfD is a proper forum to do it. Jay 💬 19:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Ah, I only just saw this. I was unsure what would be the best thing to do with these two links and figured that it was better to have a long comment than to suggest something impossible or unreasonable, but it is good to learn that there is a method to overturn discussion from long ago and that this discussion could reverse it. Though, I should have have made clearer mentioned that the list as it existed would require a significant cleanup if it is restored. (Only seven of the 107 entries had sources before the AfD concluded, if my count a moment ago is correct.) I would say that "restore and discuss again at AfD" would be my vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2022 (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, Steel1943 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The proposed retarget will only confuse or disappoint readers, since we don't discuss "ancient Jedi" there. Given current notability standards, I don't see how we could ever maintain such a list. Nor does List of Star Wars characters subdivide by type of character. I understand the desire to restore and send to AfD, but given the plainly likely outcome of such a discussion, that would be bureaucracy. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Hurricane, Mississippi

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. There's discussion as to whether Hurricane or Esperanza are the better current page title for the target, which can continue on the talk page, but there is a clear consensus that either title is a valid redirect to the other. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, confusing. Searching indicated this is an "unacceptable" place name corresponding to the 38871 zip code, which is "acceptably" Thaxton, Mississippi. Doesn't seem to be a real place. MB 03:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The original name of the community was "Esperanza", but seems to have changed to "Hurricane" following several violent storms. Something could be added to the Esperanza article explaining this.
  • This article in a local paper says the original name was "Esperanza", but was changed to "Hurricane"" following several violent storms.
  • This article says: "The Esperanza Post Office was established in 1871... Then sometime before 1900, a storm that originated in the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season had the inhabitants calling the community “Hurricane” ".
  • Here it links both communities.
  • Here too.
Magnolia677 (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reliable source today to Esperanza confirming it was a populated place in the early 1900s. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source is old and hence fully consistent with being the same place now called Hurricane. SpinningSpark 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: I'm not sure of the protocol. Do we add the name change to the Esperanza article, or expand the Hurricane article and redirect Esperanza? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct thing to do is to move the Esperanza page to the Hurricane title and explain that the name changed in-article as best we can from the sources. The Hurricane page has always (except for some vandalism) been a redirect so all the editing history is at Esperanza. Also, move the coords to where the community actually is. SpinningSpark 00:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pilk

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 12:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This mixture of Pepsi and milk is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere except a mention in a reference at Lindsay Lohan on screen and stage. I have no objection to a redirect to a target that discusses the beverage, but so long as there isn't one, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Salmon and Trout

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 Salmonidae. Nominally no consensus between deletion and redirection, defaulting to redirect in the absence of support for the status quo. While the !vote count favors deletion, the balance of arguments since the first relist favors redirection, leaving me disinclined to close as delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:XY redirect, Salmon and Trout are separate articles. Though there is a close and overlapping relationship between the two topics, there is no clearly best target and this redirect is ambiguous and unhelpful. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nom I would only weakly oppose retargeting to Salmonidae, because while both salmon and trout are discussed there, the lack of existence of the similar redirects Trout and Salmon, Trout and salmon, or Salmon and trout suggests against this redirect having much utility. It's still an XY redirect and deletion is likely best. If kept, it may be better to target the top rather than the classification section. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. Retargeting to the above suggestion seems unnecessary in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 02:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salmonidae (no section). This article establishes the connection between salmon and trout as being members of the same family, gives the collective name 'salmonids', and describes the collective traits of salmonids. I think this is a helpful redirect, especially for someone who knows that salmon and trout are closely related but may not know the name of the family (or may know them colloquially as the 'salmon and trout family'). Re Mdewman6: I have no issues with any of those other redirects being created. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salmonidae per Tavix; there is precedent that XY redirects may be acceptable for a target that discusses both topics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salmonidae (no section) per Tavix. The other ways of writing this could be created also (but aesthetically to me at least it makes sense to put them in alphabetical order). In any case, it seems a plausible search term if someone knows that salmons and trouts are members of the same family but they don't know what it's called. A7V2 (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retargeting is unnecessary. Besides salmon and trout, Salmonidae also consists of the char, the lemons, the taimans, the graylings, the whitefishes etc. Additionally, salmon and trout are just used as two common names and they each have species in Oncorhynchus and Salmo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 574923Ww? (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from trout and salmon the rest aren't nearly as well known. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence? These (Oncorhynchus and Salmo) are both genus within salmonidae, and salmon or trout being common, non-scientific names with species across the various genus of salmonidae is to me all the more reason that this is a plausible search term for salmonidae. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go... Delete or retarget? Don't mind the INVOLVED relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_17&oldid=1131660383"