Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2022.

Drip Drip Drop

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15#Drip Drip Drop

American peasant

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 14:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. While this could arguably apply to certain working arrangements in very rural parts of the country, such a conclusion would be WP:OR; the word "peasant" appears nowhere at the target article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:56, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Bananus

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 14:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a neologism for that kinda-gross bit at the end of the banana. Not mentioned at target. Not on Wiktionary. Delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:50, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Singles Inferno

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 14:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless an appropriate target can be identified. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

'~'

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 21:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this has been retargeted to have a more sensible target than the batch I nominated below this is still a WP:UNNATURAL modification 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Stinky baby

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 deleted by Bishonen. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an unlikely search term, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

'`'

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 21:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a redirect from the colon in quote marks to the article on the decimal number corresponding with its ASCII encoding. Titles with modifications like this are WP:UNNATURAL and generally not kept, and there is no reason to assume someone searching for this is looking for 58 instead of the article Colon (punctuation) 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Massive batch of redirects from an editor who has been blocked locked for this nonsense cross wiki. These are redirects from random character symbols in quote marks to articles on numbers which correspond with the decimal equivalent of their ASCII encoding. Two issues here 1) redirects from terms with random punctuation (like quote marks) are considered WP:COSTLY/WP:UNNATURAL and are generally not kept, 2) there is no reason to assume someone searching for '$' would be looking for the decimal equivalent of the ASCII encoding of $ instead of the dollar sign. I propose deletion of all of them as implausible modifications and therefore unlikely search terms. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I merged ':' into this section since the nomination was what triggered this one, and since the nominations are so similar. Below is the discussion for that redirect's original nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it makes it easier to follow by having the original nomination rationale first. That leaves two !votes by the same nominator, so I indented one below the other. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tavix: I disagree since 1234qwer1234qwer4 never specifically agreed/stated that their original rationale applies to the other nominated redirects, which is what posting their statement as the nomination statement for this discussion does. Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the way you merged it unfairly buried 1234qwer's original rationale. If you're worried about the original nomination not applying to the other redirects, you shouldn't have merged the discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...That was why I explained what I did when I text-merged the discussions. Eh, guess we'll have to agree to disagree; happens to even the best of us sometimes, I guess. (I don't plan on touching this discussion further.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created by an LTA, probably related to some nonstandard numeral system (as many of their edits are). Certainly should be deleted, along with anything else they've created that's still around. JBL (talk) 20:09, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Theories of punishment

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 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why this redirect targets where it targets, but the term isn't specific to any topic. In addition, punishment is not exclusive to prison. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Antigua-Barbuda-Redonda

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15#Antigua-Barbuda-Redonda

PMAB

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#PMAB

GGAB

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#GGAB

The Inquisitor's Squad

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 21:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these are essentially minor variants of the same thing these should probably be synchronised to point at the same place. Neither article has any particularly compelling content to point at, so I can't decide which is the best target. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Kurdification of Yazidis

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 moot. Redirect has been converted to an article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirected article should be deleted and protected, mainly because it is used as a povpush. As mentioned in Yazidis, the ethnic background is contested and many consider it a Kurdish minority. Well how can you Kurdify a Kurdish religious minority? The "Kurdification of Yazidis" article simply disregards this question (deliberately) and the references used are just cherrypicking at its best. There are also some issues with OR as some of the content is not directly about Kurdification but political issues considering Yazidis.

I should mention that there are sanctions on Kurdish subjects because of articles like these. Semsûrî (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Kurdification#After 2011 does mention Kurdification of Yazidis. Veverve (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve: That section has its own issues and I'm not sure if this is the place to decipher it. Some of the sources I checked have verification issues, are dead or just used in an OR way. The Wikileaks article[1] which reference 36 is based on does not even mention Kurdification nor insinuates it. It writes " They [Kurdish government] were teaching Arabic to Christian students, admitted Jejo, but only Kurdish to the Yezidi." Now Kurdish is the traditional language of Yazidis, so we can't talk about linguistic Kurdification here, but even if we could it would be OR. Again, not sure if this is the right place but other sources have issues as well. Semsûrî (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semsûrî: those editing problems should have been fixed at the article itself or discussed at the article talk page before starting the RfD. As of now, the redirect is legitimate since it leads to what is indicated, and RfD is not the place to debate the content of an article. Veverve (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending removal of Yazidi-related content at the target. If there are issues with the content they can be raised and addressed, but at least for now the redirect does lead readers to relevant information. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 16 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Albury, Ontario

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, nor was it when the redirect was created (presumably it never has been...). Perhaps it was created as a result of the strange note at the top of List of unincorporated communities in Ontario which I will shortly remove: "Red links representing uncreated articles are to be left on here and if you have any information, please create an article for that community or redirect it to an appropriate related topic (such as its municipality)." No doubt there are other redirects on that list which should also be deleted. Delete unless mention is justified. A7V2 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is now mentioned in the section Prince Edward County, Ontario#Communities. However I still don't feel this and similar redirects are appropriate. Someone searching this would still find the article by search, but would not misleadingly be taken to an article with next to no information about it. Further, Bearcat mentions below that this locality meets the requirements of WP:GEOLAND, and so therefore reason to delete number 10 (WP:RFD#D10, see also WP:REDYES) applies here as this could be expanded into an article. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albury, ON (located at 44.088907 N, 77.51158 W) is in Prince Edward County, between Carrying Place and Rednersville. It's not mentioned in the article, but it can be found on the map that's included in the Geography section of the article (use a magnifying glass to see it). Albury is within the bounds of the former Ameliasburgh Township, which could be a better target for the redirect although Albury isn't mentioned there either. PKT(alk) 12:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:R#KEEP. Albury, Ontario, redirects to Prince Edward County, Ontario, and is in fact located within that county, so the redirect is useful. There are hundreds of redirects like this at List of unincorporated communities in Ontario. For example, Alport, Ontario, redirects to Bracebridge, Ontario, yet there is no mention of it there, even though it is located in Bracebridge. Ideally, there should be mention of the redirect at the target article, such as the Monteith, Ontario redirect to Iroquois Falls. The shortcoming of keeping all these redirects is that they may redirect to the wrong county, but that would be an issue of vandalism/competence. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magnolia677 Which point of WP:R#KEEP are you referring to? I can't see any which would justify keeping a redirect from a subtopic which isn't mentioned. I definitely don't think it is helpful to keep a redirect to something which is not a synonym, and where it is not mentioned. "Ideally" isn't good enough. Either the target should include a list of localities at the very least, or such redirects should be deleted so as not to give the false impression of information existing about this locality. Being on a grainy map halfway down the article is not enough, and doesn't really convey much either.
    I'm aware there are many other similar redirects, I mentioned it in the nom. I nominated this one specifically since I noticed it when looking for something else, and of course I'm not going to nominate tens or hundreds of redirects without some kind of precedent. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: #5 at WP:R#KEEP: "Someone finds them useful". These redirects are geographically correct and send readers to the right county--even though the particular settlement they are looking for is not listed there. This redirect is 14 years old, and most of the other redirects at List of unincorporated communities in Ontario are that old or older. Your goal of cleaning up these redirects is a Herculean task of checking and cross-checking. Why not just go to each parent article and copy a complete list into the "communities" section? Most of the subdivisions already have these lists, but as you correctly pointed out, some are incomplete. It would probably take the same amount of time, but would dramatically improve the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the problem is that Albury isn't mentioned in the target article, then that's laughably easy to fix by adding a mention of Albury to the "communities" section in the target article. Which, in fact, I just did. But until somebody can actually write a properly sourced and properly substanced article about Albury as a standalone topic that would pass WP:GEOLAND separately from its parent municipality (which is unlikely, though I won't say never), a person who does search for it should still land somewhere relevant instead of just blanking out. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy reason why someone searching this should be taken somewhere "relevant" if that somewhere doesn't actually describe the thing they searched for. I only put that it wasn't mentioned at the target as my nom reason since I wasn't certain why it wasn't mentioned in that (still) unsourced section, and indeed the redirect should never have been created given there wasn't mention. However given what you've said about WP:GEOLAND I will update my nom statement. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There most certainly is a policy reason why an unincorporated community should be redirected to its parent municipality if we can't adequately support or source a standalone article about the community, and in fact GEOLAND explictly says that that's actively encouraged: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that interpretation. It says, as you correctly quote above, "...information on the informal place should be included in the more general article" (my emphasis). It certainly does not "explicitly" say that redirects are encouraged, it doesn't mention redirects at all, and I definitely don't think that simply naming the locality counts as "information". Of course if there was a sentence or so about the locality (as perhaps that's all there is to say about it) that would be find, but just naming it is not the same as giving information, and in my opinion is not enough to overcome reason to delete number 10 or indeed the general point of redirects which is to take a searcher to somewhere which contains information about the thing they searched for. A7V2 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who searches for Albury, Ontario will be taken to the most centrally important piece of information of all: where is it? Even if we don't have much sourceable information about it, there are still exactly zero reasons why a person who searches for it should be taken nowhere and told nothing. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have zero reasons. We have reason to delete number 10. So as I said before there is no policy/guideline reason to keep, but there is to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Albury isn't a plausible potential topic for its own standalone article — it's an unincorporated community within a municipality, not a standalone municipality in its own right, so its ability to qualify for a standalone article would depend on getting it over WP:GNG on its sourceability rather than any automatic free pass over WP:GEOLAND, and thus this doesn't pass RFD #10 as its ability to become a standalone article is purely a theoretical exercise rather than a thing that could "plausibly" happen. But until an actual GNG pass can actually be shown, a person who does search for it in the meantime most certainly does still need to have a way of at least finding out where the hell it is, which is precisely the reason why GEOLAND explictly says that communities that don't get automatic GEOLAND passes should be covered in and redirected to the municipality that they're part of. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you over this. We can disagree with the definition of "plausible" (I give it a looser definition than many others as I feel we shouldn't redirect most things for a mention alone), but why do you continue to suggest that WP:GEOLAND says to redirect communities to municipalities? It doesn't say that now, nor did it in any of the versions of it since this discussion began (I'm not going to go back and check every past version, perhaps it was in there previously?). Do you put emphasis on the word "explicitly" (for a second time, after I pointed this out above) to emphasise that you are arguing from WP:ILIKEIT rather than any policy or guideline? A7V2 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm arguing from long-established standard practice backed up by long-established standard consensus. We have a standard rule that unincorporated communities within larger municipalities should be named and/or covered in the article on the municipality that they're part of if they cannot be clearly shown to pass WP:GEOLAND as topics for their own standalone articles; and we have a standard rule that topics which cannot support their own standalone articles, but could reasonably be covered as an aspect or subtopic of a related article, should be redirected to that related article. GEOLAND does not have to directly contain the word "redirect" itself for the things I'm saying to be true; all that's necessary is adding what WP:GEOLAND says about communities without standalone legal status to what WP:REDIRECT says about redirects from "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An (unreferenced) mention has been added, but the question has not been settled on whether this is an appropriate redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Fish-hook theory

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15#Fish-hook theory

You will die

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 21:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable redirect from a generic phrase to a very specific film title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:05, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Non-free movie poster

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 Template:Non-free film poster. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Non-free film poster}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy retarget. You don't need to come to RfD for uncontroversial changes like this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, traditionally, before any redirect in the "Template:" namespace is retargeted, all of its transclusions need to be bypassed to ensure that none of them end up transcluding the incorrect template. At the present time, this redirect has almost 20,000 transclusions. And lastly, the nominated redirect cannot be WP:BOLD-ly edited since it is currently fully-protected. Steel1943 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now downgraded to template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Supermercado

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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity with the Spanish language. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 13:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of markets in the US that call themselves Supermercado. For this reason, it should be kept. Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Preliminary deal

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 20:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page Deal does not disambiguate "Preliminary deal". I suggest delete unless there's a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:43, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Mikhail Morozov

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14#Mikhail Morozov

Nibirum

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 20:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a rarely-used and unlikely misspelling. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Pledge Card

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 20:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge (disambiguation) does not disambiguate "Pledge Card", and "card" is not mentioned at Pledge. I suggest delete to enable Search to reveal the27 uses on Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Nayakas of Shorapur

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 Nayaka dynasties. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Raja should not link to his Nayaka because they are not relevant and should be delete. Q28 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Googl

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14#Googl

Adf hate symbols

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 20:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the way this is worded makes it look like these are symbols of "AFD Hate". These are symbols designated as hate symbols by the AFD but are not "AFD hate symbols". I know that redirects can be abbreviations of phrases but I think this one is misleading. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Anti-Defamation League uses the initials ADL, not ADF. It also makes it seem as if the organization represented by ADF uses certain hate symbols rather than merely cataloguing them, which I shouldn't have to say is plainly not the case. Take away the seven total edits and you have fourteen page views, all on the day of its creation. I don't even know how it could possibly have gotten those since I find it very unlikely this term would ever be used to research the topic in question. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a typo. So yeah definitely delete. Dronebogus (talk) 11:52, 10 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

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 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. The consensus isn't airtight, but a clear majority posits that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic and raise valid points. Moreover, did we really just let such high traffic redirects sit open at RfD for a month?! signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Anyone searching for Russian Invasion of Ukraine is clearly referring to the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia instead of the list of historical conflicts, not least because "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is how the front page refers to the topic. Other editors keep reverting, referring to an RFD that took place before the war broke out.

Would strongly suggest that the redirect should target 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Hentheden (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the war broke out eight years before that RFD. —Michael Z. 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is receiving about 175K page count per day for the last month and seems like the correct destination for the redirect at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-NorsemanII (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As I said on the previous RfD: Looking at daily page views we have millions at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and thousands at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine (even after the retargeting), which I interpret as meaning nearly everyone is interested in the current conflict only. So targeting that minimizes clicking. Anyone interested in the other conflicts can click through to the list from the hatnote (which would need to be added). This may change with historical distance, but that's fine. -- Beland (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, just for some consistency in my opinions. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ErnestKrause. Fephisto (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (I wrote the following before I fully read the proponent's reasons) Think about this: when someone mentionns "Michael Jackson" they're not thinking about the programmer and authon, nor the radio talk show host in Los Angeles. They are thinking of the late singer-songwriter, and that is reflected here in the unqualified name goes to his article; for evertone else they are directed toward the redirect oage. Clearly, for the duration of the war, and probably for many years to come, almost everyone trying to look up the article on the 2022 invasion, not to the earlier ones (although it should have a link to any other Russian invasions of Ukraine..

    "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by people — who read my comments — like you."

    Thank you.
    Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since three redirects were added after the day the nomination started, and since consensus seems a bit split still, can't hurt to give this another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this has been relisted, I'll reiterate my question: If the 2022 invasion really is the primary topic for "Russian invasion of Ukraine", isn't the solution to move the article to that title? The outcome proposed here would violate WP:CONCISE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the best title of the article, and the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation isn't intolerable. WP:CONCISE isn't absolute and there are plenty of examples of redirects that are more concise than their targets, e.g. Obama → Barack Obama, NFL → National Football League, Jersey City → Jersey City, New Jersey. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a solution, but is an entirely separate discussion that has been extensively discussed on said page. In light of that consensus likely not changing anytime soon, the more minor issue of what a redirect goes to should be fixed. Regarding whether it is a violation of WP:CONCISE, as @Rublov points out it is not absolute and WP:Ignore all rules dictates that we should do what is best here to properly maintain the encyclopedia. With that in mind, would someone with the rights/knowledge mind closing this discussion, as not only does there appear to be a clear consensus but the redirect just looks broken now to anyone who goes to it (Russian invasion of Ukraine) which is not what anyone thought best. Hentheden (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep targetted at dominant use (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ), make sure the target has a hatote about other esoteric historical uses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • copied over from previous log page at 00:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC) by J947 † edits
  • Support Again. Adding to my previous support recommendation, I'll also add that I agree with Tamzin's recommendation that the 2022 article have a hatmote referring to the other Ukrainian invasions. I have presumed that this will eventually be where this redirection goes, so I have put a hatnote to this effect in the 2022 article of the redirection, and the hatnore references the "master list" of Ukranian Invasions. I do not think the 2022 article shold be moved to this redirect. I'll give my reason: once this war ends it is possible Russia might invade Ukraine again, in a year, two, ten, or twenty or more; you never can tell. I don't think anyone expected one bt Russia again just eight years after Russia annexed the Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. So I think for now, this redirect should point to the 2022 invasion, and if another one happens, point it there, and put a hatnote to the Master List in the new article, chaning that article's reference from {{Redirect}} to {{For}} .

    "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

    Thank you.
    Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As there has been more than one, it seems this should not redirect to any particular invasion. Also if there is another the same argument will be used as to why it should be the redirect. We have to think in the long term. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, i.e. make it a redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine for links 1, 2, and 4; keep link 3 as it is. There were other military conflicts of Ukraine with Russia, but they are not generally described in RS as "invasion". Only 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was described as "invasion". Something like Russo-Ukrainian war would have to be targeted differently. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. The 2014 invasion of Donbas was widely referred to as the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" in reliable sources, as was the war overall. The latter was the target of this redirect until I retargeted it to the list in January. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there was an invasion in August 2014 (War_in_Donbas#August_2014_invasion_by_Russian_forces), but I think the entire war in Donbass is not usually described as an "invasion" in sources because Russia acted so much through their proxies directed by Russian GRU and FSB people (and later just by Russian military). My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 28 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

American financial crisis

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 / retarget to List of recessions in the United States. Even though consensus is not 0 clear, most participants agree that retargeting this somewhere is a far better option than deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of financial crises, e.g. the Great Depression. Why is this particular one being singled out? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems there is consensus not to keep the status quo, but what to do with the redirect is still not rather clear yet. Hoping another week can resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Green state

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Green state

Heart 103.5

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Heart 103.5

Kenya at the 2022 Winter Olympics

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 2022 Winter Olympics#Participating National Olympic Committees. Refined current target to section where Kenya's participation (or lack thereof) is described. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 11:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this. Kenya did not participate in the 2022 Winter Olympics. Delete. DB1729 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_7&oldid=1091409400"