Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

May 1

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2023.

I told you long ago on the road

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#I told you long ago on the road

Maggie Freeman

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the connection is, no mention of "Maggie" in the target and Google turns up nothing relevant ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 22:29, 1 May 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).

Sniperkill

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname not mentioned in target article, Google search turns up unrelated topics ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 22:22, 1 May 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).

The Yud

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#The Yud

List of programs broadcast by ABC Television

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 programs broadcast by ABC. I'll tackle the last 21 inbounds. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ambiguous, could also refer to List of programs broadcast by ABC (American TV network) greyzxq talk 21:38, 1 May 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).

Benbrick

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 procedural close. There you go – the requested move can be started now. :) (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 23:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting the deletion of the Benbrick redirect. Historically, Benbrick redirected to Paul Carter (songwriter). However, Benbrick is the official artist/producer name used for all musical and creative activities. Requesting deletion of the redirect so Benbrick becomes available for WP:RM to move content to the more appropriate name. It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – [Certainly, it is reasonable to place the article under the name Benbrick. I am uncertain whether the suggested approach of removing the redirect to merge the articles under the new title is the most efficient or proper way; however, it does appear logical.] Seonadancer (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Thanks for tagging me here. I agree with deleting the redirect, and moving the page. IPProtect (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. RfD is not the place for this. The redirect page has some history including failed cut-and-paste move and PROD. The nom was suggested multiple times to request a WP:RM. It is not required to delete the target page in order for a WP:RM. Jay 💬 05:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jay. Attempting WP:RM gives an error stating a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Are you suggesting the correct procedure is requesting it on Wikipedia:Requested moves page instead? It doesn't appear to be something I can do myself? It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RM and Wikipedia:Requested moves are the same. The former is just a shortcut to the latter. Why are you not able to request a move, what is the error you are getting? Jay 💬 13:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Jay, I am assuming the reason it can't be moved is because Benbrick is not blank. When I try to move Paul Carter (songwriter) and put Benbrick as the destination I get the following message:
    The page could not be moved, for the following reason:
    The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.
    Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved.
    Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.
    It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I suggested deleting the redirect. As you say there is some history, but none of it is consequential by any means. Especially when considering the vast amount of edit history on the other page (which would be moved and retained). It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you have attempted to request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please make the request there. Jay 💬 14:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks will give it a try. Appreciate your help and patience. It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay - Am I able to delete the RfD request that I put on the Benbrick page initially? Or does some consensus need to be reached here first, or will it automatically revert to the original redirect without notice? Appreciate your advice - learning here. It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 21:27, 9 May 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).

Multiple Redirects to SCP Foundation

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#Multiple Redirects to SCP Foundation

Academy.edu

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 International Academy of Design and Technology. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The domain name "academy.edu" is not mentioned anywhere on the target page and is a dead link. A random sampling of Archive.org shows that it was previously the domain name for the International Academy of Design and Technology in Tampa. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:48, 1 May 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).

Rachel Sweeney

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Sweeney, but the target TV station article does not include (and did not include at the time of the redirect, and as far as I can see never has included) a list of all its past presenters. Belbury (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 1 May 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).

The subcontinent

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 with hatnote to Continent#Subcontinents. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly ambiguous and I was surprised that it redirects to its current target and that it hasn't previously been listed for discussion (judging by its history). I'd suggest retargetting to Continent § Subcontinents as an {{avoided double redirect}} for Subcontinent. The two should point to the same place. (Note: It has a lot of incoming links which will need to be amended if this is retargeted to the destination I suggested or elsewhere, but I've seen in other RfDs that there a ways of doing that as part of the closing procedure.) – Scyrme (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Keep. Anecdotally, this subcontinent is the subcontinent. No other regions are popularly referred to as subcontinents, let alone deemed unnecessary to disambiguate further and thus called 'the subcontinent' outside of specific circles. For some evidence, WhatLinksHere is relevant in that way. J947 † edits 09:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What "the subcontinent" refers to depends on the context. In the context of a book that discusses West Asia, "the subcontinent" might refer to the Arabian peninsula rather than the Indian peninsula, if it was previously referred to as a "subcontinent". For example, Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires uses "the subcontinent" in reference to Arabia. Reliable sources that use "(the) subcontinent" to refer to other landmasses exist and should not be discounted.
    The proposed target, Continent § Subcontinents prominently includes a picture of the Indian subcontinent and a link to that article, so even if that's what someone expected they would easily still find it. – Scyrme (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, anecdote, but I suggest any uses that don't refer to the Indian subcontinent are substantially outweighed. Also, wouldn't the use you've described above have just been elegant variation? When looking at a term's usage while debating a redirect, only more proper synonyms such as those listed here. J947 † edits 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elegant variation? The use I described is just basic grammar, not a gratuitous flourish. It's typical to omit a proper noun and use a common name instead when the context makes it clear what the common name refers to. Using "the mountian", "the hill", "the river", "the lake", "the forest", "the country", "the continent", or, as in this case "the subcontinent", in reference to a particular place rather than redundantly repeating the proper name each time is normal English and no more unusual than using a pronoun rather than someone's name. In-fact, repeating the proper name each time would be strange.
    I don't deny that "the subcontinent" more frequently refers to the Indian peninsula more than any other landmass, but simply searching "subcontinent" without a "the" produces similar results to the ones you linked. The search results for "subcontinent" and "the subcontinent" are basically the same, so there is no justification for having them point to different targets. Continent § Subcontinents also acknowledges that the Indian peninsula is the most widely recognised subcontinent, but it's still not the only referent for that basic term and subcontinent rightfully redirects to the general section rather than the most frequently discussed subcontinent.
    Practically, this isn't a problem because, as I said, even if someone was looking for Indian subcontinent they would find it at Continent § Subcontinents. Redirecting there helps the most readers, as it helps both those looking for Indian subcontinent and those looking for another subcontinent. It also performs the function of disambiguation while avoiding the need for special measures like hatnotes or dedicated disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to lay out my argument more clearly. The reader who searches subcontinent is most likely (?) looking for Indian subcontinent, but also might very well be looking for Continent#Subcontinents, and there's no doubt there as to where we should target that redirect. The search the subcontinent refers to a specific subcontinent. Normally we'd redirect it to Continent#Subcontinents anyway for disambiguation as you say, but one subcontinent is by far the most widely referred to as such. There are two main uses of the term the subcontinent: one, a shortening of Indian subcontinent like in this title; two, an example of elegant variation, or just variation, whatever you wish to call it. I propose that it is mainly the first use which is relevant. You pointed out It's typical to omit a proper noun and use a common name instead when the context makes it clear what the common name refers to. There the finger is laid upon why the variation use isn't important in this discussion: the title the subcontinent is the entirety of the relevant text here – there is no further context. The only subcontinent regularly called the subcontinent with no further context is the Indian one. J947 † edits 20:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With no further context? Every use I've seen that does refer to the Indian subcontinent also clearly establishes the context by naming places within said subcontinent. I see absolutely no difference between the first and second use; both are contractions or variations or whatever you prefer to call it of "the X subcontinent" where X could be "Indian" or "Arabian" or whichever geographical adjective is relevant as established by the context in which "the subcontinent" is used. – Scyrme (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally, reputable sources will avoid using this more colloquial term to refer to the subcontinent, and those that do use it will near-invariably refer to places contained in the subcontinent too. But a search is informal, and I've yet to see a single instance of the subcontinent referring to anything but the Indian one.
    One's a contraction, one's just a variation in language use. Almost all readers who search a term up aren't using it as a variation in language use as there's no need to vary: they're only writing two words -- what variance can be needed! It's not like readers are writing a paragraph where they want to avoid every second sentence containing the exact phrase Arabian peninsula. That's the only occasion we've yet seen an alternative use of this term. J947 † edits 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargetting to Continent#Subcontinents per nom. It is indeed extremely misleading to target India with such a general, broad expression. Veverve (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the definite article, it always refers to this. Very common usage in my experience.StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not "always" refer to this. The are reliable sources that use it in reference to other landmasses. I linked an example earlier, which uses "the subcontinent" in reference to the Arabian subcontinent(redirect to Arabian peninsula). – Scyrme (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is similar to why America is redirected to United States of America instead of Americas. Moreover, the term "the subcontinent" is preferred by citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. to avoid the usage of the prefix "Indian", since they perceive it as placing the republic of India in a dominant position. Even the formal sources (like news) from the Indian republic (as well as Commonwealth nations like Australia) almost always use "the subcontinent" and never "Indian subcontinent". Hence "the subcontinent" is more of a purposeful political contraction (since the partition of India) rather than an elegant variation, which needs to be respected. 27.5.139.173 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This explains why it's comparatively more frequent, but I don't think it justifies making Indian subcontinent the target. I don't agree that it is similar to "America"; by itself "America" is never used to refer to "the Americas" in English, but "the subcontinent" is used to refer to landmasses other than the Indian peninsula. Political objections to the "Indian" adjective aren't really relevant to what Wikipedia should do; if it were relevant, why not suggest moving Indian subcontinent to a different title? Additionally "the subcontinent" is still an ambiguous term. News sources resolve the ambiguity by clearly establishing the topic by reference to places, people, etc. that make it obvious what is meant. A redirect can't do that, so it has to be resolved some other way. The simplest way is to target Continent § Subcontinents as that helps everyone regardless of what they're looking for. – Scyrme (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "the subcontinent" is more common in use and is more acceptable for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans, and other nations in the region. Insight 3 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does that mean it should be kept? Changing the redirect target doesn't prevent anyone from using the term in reference to the Indian subcontinent, it would only mean that links on Wikipedia would be piped to link directly to that article. It also wouldn't stop anyone from finding the article even if they did click on the redirect, since the proposed target also links them to that article. – Scyrme (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are hundreds of incoming links, and I suspect every single one of them refers unambiguously to the Indian subcontinent - certainly the first few do. I hope, Scyrme, that you are prepared to fix all these links. StAnselm (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I've seen in other RfDs that there a ways to retarget large numbers of links as part of the closing procedure. The incoming links are not a reason to keep. (Also, there aren't "hundreds". There's about one hundred, and a number of them are "Article Alerts" and the like that exist because of this RfD so the actual number that needs fixing is actually less than a hundred. Even if there weren't a procedure for this, it wouldn't take too long for me to sort them all out manually.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone searching for or linking to "the subcontinent" (as opposed to "a subcontinent" or "subcontinent") almost certainly wants and expects the Indian subcontinent.[1] It gets only about 2 hits per day, so is not causing problems. For the rare reader who might expect something else, a hatnote is in place. Station1 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is the issue: according to the encyclopedia you linked to, "the subcontinent" is British English. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does the link there say that? Looking at the snippets, I'm seeing every use of "subcontinent" which includes both references to "Indian subcontinent" and "the subcontinent" (which is entirely consistent with my observations regarding context being the factor that determines which subcontinent is "the" subcontinent). – Scyrme (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    p. 216. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it does. The same bit says "usually" (so not "always"), but notes that this usage is similar to Briish use of "the continent"(redirect to Europe) which refers to Europe; evidently this redirect is consistent with that one. – Scyrme (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The continent redirecting to Europe seems very sketchy IMO: probably deserves it's own RfD. J947 † edits 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I added it to my watchlist because I was worried someone would nominate it. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't matter whether "the subcontinent" is always used to refer to the Indian subcontinent, it just matters whether or not it is the primary topic for the phrase - and when used outside of any other context it most definitely is. Most users looking for a different subcontinent will use a term that includes sufficient context, and those relatively few that don't will be served by hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the overwhelming primary topic. I've flipped through several pages of search results online and in books, and I couldn't spot any examples of the term used for anything else. The Arabian peninsula example from earlier appears to be an instance where "the subcontinent" isn't a proper noun by itself but merely refers to whatever subcontinent is being talked about in the context. I think this is analogous to how "Donald" may refer to any one or another person with the name, but "the Donald", without any contextual cues, will universally be taken to refer to the former US president. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect isn't capitalised, so isn't a proper noun. If this were the Subcontinent, then it would be analagous. – Scyrme (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By calling it a proper noun, I mean it's used to identify a specific entity. Capitalisation doesn't always indicate if an expression has such a function. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as primary topic. Weak hatnote to Arabian subcontinent, but only because the nom is particular about this alternate usage. Oppose treating The subcontinent the same as subcontinent. Jay 💬 11:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather a hatnote point to Continent § Subcontinents rather than specifically to Arabian peninsula. The latter is just a common example. "The subcontinent" can refer to other places. A Companion to Latin American Philosophy (2013), for example, often refers to "the subcontinent", where it clearly means South America. (With the Americas being regarded as a single continent; as noted at Continent the six continent model with the Americas as 1 continent is common in Romance-speaking countries.) – Scyrme (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, the hatnote I would prefer if this were not retargeted would be something like: "The subcontinent" redirects here. For other landmasses, see subcontinent. (With a redirect being used to link the section to keep the phrasing natural and concise.) – Scyrme (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like: "The subcontinent" redirects here. For other subcontinents, see subcontinent. Jay 💬 07:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to avoid repetition, but "other subcontinents" would also work. – Scyrme (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha – this is a great example of elegant variation right here. I think landmasses flows better, but it could certainly be critiqued as over-elegant (even though it isn't very elegant as you pointed out earlier). To the point, in the hatnote sentence you offer above, 'landmasses' refers to – basically, means – 'subcontinents'. However, we wouldn't class it as a competing use; we wouldn't class it as evidence landmasses is an ambiguous term, one that often refers to subcontinents or islands instead of landmass, as it is just a linguistic mechanism to describe something in a slightly different way. This analogy is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but I think it does illustrate my point. J947 † edits 11:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elegant variation is the use of synonyms to satisfy an artistic preference for variety. I was less concerned with elegance or artistic preference and more with the fact that other such hatnotes I've seen don't repeat the same term. I was following what seemed to be the precedent.
    Even if you insist that using "landmasses" was elegant variaton, I do not agree that it illustrates your point. "Landmasses" can be ambiguous because it is an umbrella term and so it's imprecise. All umbrella terms are ambiguous when used to refer to only some subsets of the term rather than all subsets. Here, the ambiguity is resolved by the context in which it used, wherein it is obvious that islands or other subsets of "landmass" aren't what's meant.
    That context resolves the ambiguity actually illustrates my point.
    Regardless, these situations aren't really analogous because "landmasses" does not replace "subcontinents" for the sake of being concise, whereas "the subcontinent" being using instead of "the Indian subcontinent", "the Arabian subcontinent", "the South American subcontinent", etc. (or even "the subcontinent of the Indian peninsula", "the subcontinent of the Arabian peninsula", "the subcontinent of South America", etc.) is more concise. Variation for the sake of being concise is not "variation for the sake of variety".
    That said, you might argue that it's not just about being concise because "the subcontinent" is like "the continent" meaning "Europe" or "the pond" meaning "North Atlantic". These are both used in British English and I've heard/seen both used in sentences/conversations where it's just assumed that the listener knows what's meant without any cue to indicate what's meant. (And in-fact, I've seen "the pond" be explained after the fact to Americans who didn't already know.) I've not seen "the subcontinent" used in this way. None of the news articles or Google results I've seen use it that way. Perhaps it is casually used that way in South Asia, I don't know. The continent and the pond set an unclear precedent for how to deal with such use, since one redirects to an article but the other redirects to a disambiguation page; could go either way. – Scyrme (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to setting a precedent and The continent, see WT:Redirects for discussion/Archive 10#Redirects with "The". On the Pond which is actually Across the pond, I feel the disambig target is justified. Coincidentally, I had not heard of the usage in any English, and I learnt about the Pond only last week! Jay 💬 13:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that discussion, there seemed to be agreement that the plausibility of redirects from the definite article should be judged individually, rather judging all "the..." redirects to be implausible or plausible by default. Besides using the continent as an example of a plausible case that discussion doesn't really seem all that relevant here since this isn't about the definite article in general, but rather about particular idioms and whether "the subcontinent" is such an idiom. – Scyrme (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is. Frequently used. As I said right at the start, Anecdotally, this subcontinent is the subcontinent.. And others have agreed with me. It's just like the pond, you're correct – and the only reason that's a dab page is because it's genuinely ambiguous. In terms of evidence, I've already given this, but it's a phrase that isn't often used on its own in formal contexts. Look at news results for the pond, for instance. Informal use can be demonstrated by searching up the subcontinent on your favourite social media platform and seeing what comes up. It works on Wikipedia, with results that could be presented rather uniformly on a continuum from "much context" to "no context". J947 † edits 00:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've already given this" - I saw it the first time; that article has plenty of cues to indicate that the Indian subcontinent is meant. However, ...
    Looking on Twitter, I was able to see examples of "the subcontinent" used much like how Brits use "the continent" without any cues (at least in the tweets themselves; looking elsewhere like the replies or at the account often fills in the blanks, otherwise the reader just has to assume what's meant). Seems you're right.
    Alright, I concede.
    Keep (with a hatnote). Handle it the same way that the continent is handled, that is, redirecting to the primary topic but with a hatnote for readers expecting a less specific destination. – Scyrme (talk) 19:55, 13 May 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).

Raymund Minderer

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. Withdrawn by nom - missed the mention of him in the article. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this name in linked article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:14, 1 May 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).

BokmaalAndNynorsk

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) 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, although ineligible for CSD:R3 because it was created two decades ago. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:03, 1 May 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).

End poem

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 WP:IAR retarget. Given that End Poem now exists. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem particularly relevant to the linked subject. All I can see is a poem about Minecraft...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:02, 1 May 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).

1685 in Canada

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to 1680s in Canada. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 07:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article linked to mentioned 1685, nor does any of the pages that it originally linked to. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:58, 1 May 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).

Barry(worm)

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 WP:SNOW and WP:G7. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed (missing a space) and not currently mentioned in article. At the time the redirect was created in 2012 the article cited a news item about a incident with a particular worm nicknamed "Barry" (who was not identified as anything more specific than a polychaete in the news item), but the nickname was not included in the article. A year and a half later the name "Barry" was added to the article. The incident with Barry isn't notable, and has since been removed from the article, and it was never clear that Barry was this species. There is no need for this redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 05:48, 1 May 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).

Splash Zone Water Park

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 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pointing to the business's competitor; it is not mentioned in that article. Perhaps the creator got it mixed up with neighboring Raging Waters, which is part of Morey's Piers and is mentioned. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:49, 1 May 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).

Bridges Over Borders

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Bridges Over Borders

Adam Nicolle

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual character nor an involved individual in the film. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:34, 1 May 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).

Ukrainian jargon

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 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon is not dialect, and there is barely any description of Ukrainian vocabulary at the target at all, let alone one this specific. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:07, 1 May 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).

Vikværsk

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Vikværsk

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_1&oldid=1154872401"