Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

March 22

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2024.

British politician sex

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 Profumo affair#In popular culture. ✗plicit 00:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A lyric from We Didn't Start the Fire that is not mentioned at the target article. Because this song has to deal with world history and events, this title can very well be used to refer to sex between British politicians, outside of the context of being a song lyric, and is currently unhelpful as it is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

China's under martial law

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#China's under martial law

Back to the front

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 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lyric not mentioned at the target article. "Back" is not mentioned, nor is "front". This is a pretty common phrase and is used as a lyric in Lil Boo Thang, for one, a Yu-Gi-Oh card popped up for this term too, and it's pretty similar to and likely confusable with Back from the front. Without a mention of this lyric at the current target, it's a confusing redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

So you think you can stop me and spit in the eye

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 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An incorrect lyric from Bohemian Rhapsody not mentioned at the target. The correct version does not exist, and is not mentioned at the target either. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Anoche, anoche soñé contigo

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 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lyric from a Wisin & Yandel song not mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Estoy brillando con highlighter, ¿no lo ves?

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 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lyric from a J Balvin song not mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Aquí no hay contrato, ya veo el brillo en tus ojos

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 00:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets of song lyrics of Bad Gyal, all of which created at the same time and none of which appear at the target articles, nor should they appear due to these being unlikely search terms for which we don't have any particular content about. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about these lyrics. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Being lyrics to a song whose lyrics are not notable enough to get extensive discussion makes all of these not particularly useful search terms. If google (or any other search engine, or LLM AI, etc) made wikipedia popup when searching these lyrics, people would not get the information they want, which would presumably be the full lyrics or a discussion on the meaning of the lyrics, neither of which we provide. Fieari (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Tantras

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Tantras

Website previously known as Twitter

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) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion for unencyclopedic search terms that are unlikely to be frequently sought after or helpful as most readers looking for Twitter would just search for that and go from there, plus it is still largely called Twitter on the site and by many media and news outlets. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, plus no mainspace links to either one. GSK (talk • edits) 01:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:UNHELPFUL, a test search for "Website previously known as Tumblr" had Tumblr as the very first result. Presumably, if we removed this redirect, the same would still hold for Twitter. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep both as per a smart kitten and Thryduulf, who are right on all counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamann (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I... what???? That was supposed to be an edit of the comment above it. It displayed correctly in the past. How in the name of sanity did THIS happen??? ...Why does nonsense like this keep happening to me specifically? First Discussions stuffed the entirety of RtD into my collapsible, then Twinkle stole my reply meant for one discussion and put it under a different one, and now this nonsense. It's like these bot scripts have it out for me or something, lol Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lunamann: I'll explain this further on your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Variations of the phrase [the website] formerly known as Twitter have been used (& are being used) by a number of reliable sources - e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - thus making this a likely & potentially helpful search term (engaging WP:R#K3); with no other target that it could be ambiguous with (as far as I can tell at a glance). Redirects are cheap, and - notwithstanding my problems with the WP:COSTLY essay - I don't believe WP:UNHELPFUL/WP:PANDORA apply in this instance, due to this specific phrase being used by reliable sources. A lack of incoming internal links is not a reason for deletion - especially so with redirects such as these ones, which can validly exist as search terms. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like these should use “formerly”, rather than or at least as well as “previously”, as these quotes are usually worded in that way. –Gluonz talk contribs 13:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point (I must have skimread the exact wording of the redirects too quickly!). My opinion would be that both forms could exist as redirects, given that previously is a synonym of formerly. (For what it’s worth, at a search, I’ve found sources also using previously - e.g. [8], [9], [10]) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you could find 10x as many references to the locution Zuckerberg's company being used to mean Facebook by reliable sources—surely you're not suggesting a redirect for that as well? If not, I completely fail to see the relevance of this comment. The power of natural language is such that you can always construct new ways to refer to the same entity, and someone out there will be using at least some of those locutions. That has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect here, or whether someone is likely to use the given locution as a search term. A journalist uses an expression like the company formerly known as Twitter to achieve a specific rhetorical effect; a searcher, on the other hand, is only trying to find a topic as quickly as possible—and they will generally do so with the fewest number of words that suit the purpose, and which actually occur to them. Since it is obviously impossible someone could say the company formerly known as Twitter while forgetting the name Twitter, it stands to reason very few, if any, people will search for the longer term when the shorter term will do. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per a smart kitten. These are highly plausible search terms, given that phrases like this are how many people are referring to the website previously known as Twitter. The longer it becomes since it was known as Twitter the more likely it will be that people don't know what is being referred to, and even those who do won't know the title of our article given how ambiguous "X" is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the third reply; the second reply brings my opinion slightly towards ‘delete’ but still within the ‘keep’ range. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely search term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both redirects show evidence of being used, getting 12 (Website) and 40 (The website) hits between October and February. The latter particularly is evidence these are not actually unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely doesn't mean never. Should we make redirects for animal that barks, country shaped like a boot, and playwright who wrote Romeo and Juliet next? These belong on Jeopardy!, not Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with that is that WP:PANDORA, which seems to be the only citeable essay or guideline or policy that I can find that attempts to put into words why we don't and shouldn't have such "sentence redirects"... is, as Thryduulf put it at one point, 'WP:OTHERSTUFF nonsense'. Like, the core idea-- that we shouldn't make or keep redirects that amount to a user typing an entire sentence or question into the searchbox-- seems sound to me, but the 'pandora's box' argument used renders the essay... dare I say it? Renders it WP:UNHELPFUL. (And this is coming from a relatively new user that has been trying to wrap my brain around this for the past couple of weeks, and also, who tried to cite that very argument earlier on in this very discussion.)
    That said, WP:COSTLY nonsense notwithstanding, I wouldn't mark this as one of those redirects. As smart kitten and Thryduulf have pointed out, this phrase (or at least, a variant of it) gets used in reliable sources all the time to refer to Twitter/X, and has been ever since the name change. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find evidence that people are searching Wikipedia for those terms, especially if they are frequently used in multiple independent sources, then they would likely make useful redirects (although "animal that barks" is ambiguous - Bark (sound) notes that dogs, wolves, coyotees, foxes, seals and other animals all make that noise)). However as Lunamann points out, whether they are or are not useful search terms is completely irrelevant to whether these redirects are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meeeaaan, if you put animal that barks -> dog up on RfD, I'd recommend retargeting to Bark (sound). But we're getting into the weeds. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all must be cat people... InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    shoutouts to pokémon for having cats that bark cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can find evidence that people are searching Wikipedia for those terms,

    You say this as if anyone has provided any evidence that people are using the search term "the company formerly known as Twitter" here on Wikipedia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hits are not evidence of search engine use. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this obviously false claim. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA, we could otherwise end up with things like Country previously known as Swaziland or Parish previously known as Halstead Rural. There is no merits that I can see that we would treat this one differently than all the other things that have been renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes this different is that multiple sources frequently refer to it as "(the) website previously known as Twitter" as a name, not just as temporary clarification, in the same way "The artist formerly known as Prince" was used. Also, once again, WP:PANDORA is just WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:CRYSTAL - we judge redirects on their own merits, not on the merits of other redirects that someone might theoretically create at some point in the future (and there isn't even evidence to support the underlying assumption that it will encourage such creations). Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Website previously known as Twitter" only gets around 529 Google hits most of which are from Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to be a common term unlike "The artist formerly known as Prince" which is mentioned in the target and has about 135,000 hits, similarly "Country previously known as Swaziland" has about 528 hits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More like 9 news results, three of which are invalid. I guess that must be some users' definition of "widely used by reliable sources". InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we judge redirects on their own merits, and this one has none. If you bothered putting the other search terms offered as anti-examples into Google, you'd see they manifestly have far more searches than this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if the country of Swaziland were only recently renamed to Swaziland, still regularly referred to as Swaziland by most people, and kept getting referred to with the phrase "Country previously known as Swaziland" in reliable publications, then yeah, I could see us ending up with Country previously known as Swaziland. ...It's a bit like The Artist Formerly Known as Prince. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the point, it seems Prince is sometimes actually named as "The artist formerly known as Prince" which "Country previously known as Swaziland" is just a sentence so is not a plausible redirect. In other words the "Country previously known as" is just a modifier rather than a name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehhh. I mean, during the time period where Prince was referred to as 'The artist formerly known as Prince', his name was actually File:Prince logo.svg. (You can probably see why people referred to him as 'The artist formerly known as Prince') In that case, I'd argue that 'The artist formerly known as' would also just be a modifier. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, if the country of Swaziland were only recently renamed to Swaziland, still regularly referred to as Swaziland by most people, and kept getting referred to with the phrase "Country previously known as Swaziland"

    Literally all of these things are true. Did you bother checking? The correct response here is to have a redirect at Swaziland to Eswatini, because the expression "formerly known as" is, in a sense, the linguistic equivalent of a redirect already. The solution is not to think people will actually be searching for entire sentences and thus create a redirect for them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per "no one refers to it as x". aside from elon and organization 13
on a more serious note, i think the "previously" would require that the target article not be named "twitter" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require readers to know what our article is titled before they can read it, indeed that's the point of redirects like this. "no one refers to it as x" would be a valid argument against moving the article but is completely irrelevant here - rather it's a reason why this redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Admittedly involved relist on my part, going to IAR in order to close the subpage. No prior relists with 6 !votes delete and 5 !votes keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where has its utility been demonstrated? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In multiple comments by multiple people pointing out the page views and the use of this and similar terms in multiple independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page views are not evidence that people arrived at those pages via search, since links exist. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People using this redirect as a link to the content they want to read (and there is no other content this could refer to) is evidence of use. It's irrelevant whether people are navigating via the internal search engine, an external search engine, direct URL entry, links from internal or external pages, or any other method - what matters is that this redirect takes them to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People using this redirect as a link...is evidence of use.

No, it isn't, actually, because anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, and for the non-mainspace articles where this particular link exclusively shows up, there aren't even many checks on such edits. This is the exact argument cited by WP:OTHERSTUFF, which you love referencing here, edited here for relevance: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles links do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article link.
If it were that simple, anyone could end a redirect discussion immediately by spamming the link across user/talkspace. Even disregarding such malicious intent, the existence of a redirect causes people to use it; to claim we should then keep the redirect is, therefore, circular.

It's irrelevant whether people are navigating via the internal search engine, an external search engine, direct URL entry, links from internal or external pages, or any other method - what matters is that this redirect takes them to the content they are looking for.

First, the person I am replying to above said, explicitly, it's demonstrably a useful search term. It's fine if you want to talk about a different set of goalposts, but that wasn't how this thread started, and I am still waiting on @Fieari, or anyone else, to back up this claim.
Second, that a redirect takes them to the content they are looking for is trivially true of any redirect that isn't straight up wrong (i.e. mistargeted). This isn't a useful or interesting fact, except when it isn't true.
Third, it is supremely relevant whether people are using this link via search, or because someone else put it on a page on talk/userspace, because the latter is something anyone can do as discussed above. If a term is getting actual, organic search use, that is a far better indicator of its utility, than someone clicking on a link because someone else put a link somewhere (who, in turn, used the link because they saw the redirect existed, or perhaps even created the redirect themselves). Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making the assumption that links can only be from other pages on the English Wikipedia, when they can be from any page on the internet. The existence or non-existence of links is not the sole determining factor of a redirect's utility, but it is one factor that plays a part in the decision. If people are clicking on a link to reach this article, that is exactly as much evidence of utility as them typing this phrase into a search engine to reach this article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the assumption that links can only be from other pages on the English Wikipedia

Are you seriously claiming a whole bunch of people (or even just one) are linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website_previously_known_as_Twitter from outside Wikipedia? Can you provide any evidence of this?

If people are clicking on a link to reach this article, that is exactly as much evidence of utility as them typing this phrase into a search engine to reach this article.

You are just repeating the point I just refuted without addressing anything I said. I'm genuinely curious if you think any RfD could be pre-empted by just, ahead of time, making sure the given redirect appears on a bunch of talk/user pages. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:PANDORA, and the other replies I've made in reply to others above. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete improbable search term. The article is currently at Twitter. As per nom and WP:PANDORA.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brusquedandelion and Redtigerxyz: Please can you explain why other redirects, that might or might not be created, which might or might not be useful, and which might or might not have any connection to this redirect, is a reason to delete a redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you unable to read WP:PANDORA? WP:OTHERSTUFF is bad when it acts as an example of the example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). That's not the argument being made here, or at WP:PANDORA. The argument is that allowing such redirects to exist will, in the long run, result in a worse user experience and therefore a worse encyclopedia—either because user's expectations that certain redirects exist will go unfulfilled, or arguably worse, because their expectations will be fulfilled, at the cost of editor time and effort in having to maintain a factorial explosion in the number of redirects.
      I have also yet to see any evidence that people are really using this as a search term (as opposed to clicking on a link, which proves nothing). Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm explicitly calling out PANDORA as the fallacy, because the utility of redirects is determined on their own merits not the merits of hypothetical future redirects that, if they ever exist, may or may not share any characteristics with the nominated one. If a given redirect is useful to the encyclopaedia and/or its readers (and people using a link is absolutely evidence of utility) then it is kept, it if isn't then it is deleted. People being inspired to create useful redirects in the future is something we want to encourage, even if it means an infinitesimal increase in the maintenance burden (which is orders of magnitude less than the burden created when people nominate demonstrably useful redirects for deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm explicitly calling out PANDORA as the fallacy, because the utility of redirects is determined on their own merits not the merits of hypothetical future redirects

      I am not claiming this redirect lacks merit because other hypothetical future redirects lack merit. I am claiming this redirect lacks merit because it leads to a worse user experience. The reason for the latter is because it implies the existence of other redirects, but I am absolutely not making the claim that this redirect is bad because other redirects are bad!
      A further comment: without making reference to WP:PANDORA, can you explain why there shouldn't be redirects for pages like first vice president of the United States (→ John Adams), Zuckerberg's company (→ Facebook/Meta Platforms), or the richest man in history (→ Mansa Musa)? Keep in mind, a simple Google search will show these are used far more often than the redirects we are discussing here (both in absolute terms, and relative to the frequency of the base expression). Or do you think such pages should exist? If you agree they shouldn't exist, but must invoke WP:PANDORA to justify this reasoning, this is an affirmation of the utility of WP:PANDORA.

      People being inspired to create useful redirects in the future is something we want to encourage,

      This is not a useful redirect, and other redirects like it would also not be useful. I have yet to see any evidence people are searching for this on Wikipedia. And for all the hot air about how "these terms are used by reliable sources!", in fact, the exact string "website previously known as Twitter" only appears a grand total of 7 times in a Google News search. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep harmless, clearly identifies the site. On the other hand, if you know "formerly known as Twitter" you probably will just search for "Twitter", or at least will if "website previously known as Twitter" doesn't work, and Brusquedandelion makes a good point re:usage. So all in all eh. Rusalkii (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Peach Tree

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 Peach. Jay 💬 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peach tree is currently a redirect to Peach. While this title differs in caps from the general tree redirect, this war is never referred to as "Peach Tree" just by itself. I don't think the need is here to warrant a WP:DIFFCAPS variant for a shortened version of "Peach Tree War" (that is only used once throughout the article). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention, this redirect seems to have been created as a mistake when moving Peach Tree War to Peach War, and apparently not an intentional pointage here. But, figured I'd bring this here to discuss the diffcaps redirect that was created as a result. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This isn't necessary, and if left, might generate quite a bit of WP:SURPRISE for anyone who was simply wanting an article on peach trees. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not opposed to instead retargeting to Peach. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would have been created when I accidentally moved Peach Tree War to Peach Tree. Immediately reverted this move then moved Peach Tree War to Peach War. Peach War is the more common usage, although a few secondary sources use Peach Tree War. Griffin's Sword (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

E e e e e a a a a a

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 00:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is an alternate name, and can be said and used in nearly any context where multiple vowels are said consecutively. Doesn't appear at the target, so no particular association. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Doubles guy

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 00:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "doubles guy" at the target, or in any meaningful capacity anywhere on Wikipedia. The only hits this gets are from a person that plays doubles tennis, named Guy. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm fairly certain this is in reference to a meme regarding Patrick Bateman from American Psycho (film). That said, even there, the topic is only referenced vaguely in passing-- The film is frequently a topic of memes and has been said by some to be relevant due to its themes and satirical nature... That's not enough to support this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Doh I missed

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 00:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rcats on this redirect completely and perfectly spell out the reasons why this redirect should be deleted. A quote, from a related meme, not mentioned at target. Brilliant, doing the job for me! This redirect title is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Demi (Phantasy Star IV)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Demi (Phantasy Star IV)

Delta Xi Omega – Faulkner

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Delta Xi Omega – Faulkner

Deep well fish

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 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "deep" is not mentioned at target. The word "well" is mentioned but never in the context of being a noun, that could ever be interpreted as "deep". Appears to be a nickname for the subject, but this nickname does not occur anywhere at the page or on Wikipedia. Searches for this term exclusively procure Deep-sea fish intel. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this a translation from Nauhatl or Spanish? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Translating the edit summary from the creation of the redirect (深井魚, presumably Chinese - I'm not familiar with these characters) gives us 'Deep well fish' using Google translate and 'Shamrock Fish/Shamoi (deep-well fish)' using DeepL. Searches for shamrock fish/Shamoi only return names of places/people. I'm inclined to believe this is some literal translation of the Chinese word for axolotl. ― Synpath 02:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) I spoke too soon, forgetting to do the reverse translate of axolotl to chinese which gives 蠑螈 from Google translate. Who knows what that edit summary is referring to. ― Synpath 02:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect is from an implausible translation mistake, apparently even to the wrong fish, per above. Fieari (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Lime juicer

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 Juicer. ✗plicit 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering retargetting to Juicer, as Orange juicer and Lemon juicer redirect there. How should we do about this though, as lime-juicer can also refer to that particular term according to the current target? Also considering redirecting all three to Lemon squeezer as an alternative as they're citrus fruits. 1033Forest (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget. This is a job for hatnotes! "Lime juicer", "Lemon juicer", and "Orange juicer" redirect here. For the handheld tool, see Lemon squeezer. For the archaic, pejorative name for the British, see Glossary of names for the British#Limey. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Darkstream

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 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstream is not mentioned at the target. It is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, besides as a publisher offhandedly mentioned at Bugsy McGraw Utopes (talk / cont) 19:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dangerous day ahead

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 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The day before any tornado can be seen as a "dangerous day ahead". In particular to this tornado, this phrase was tweeted by a stormchaser and turned into a movie/doc after they lost their lives in this tornado. This movie, nor this phrase, is mentioned at the target, so people searching for this term will not receive the content about what they're looking for, and as a standalone term is too generic to be reliable. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dallas Stars Ice Girls

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Dallas Stars Ice Girls

Palojärv

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Palojärv

Oregon Business

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 20:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From its website, Oregon Business Development Department is known as "Business Oregon" not "Oregon Business". Oregon Business is the name of a magazine often cited in articles but about which we have no substantive article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Hoothi

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 Houthi movement. Jay 💬 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The initial target was Love and War (Cornell novel), which made sufficient mention of the Hoothi, until it was redirected to Paul Cornell, which makes no such mention. Someone typing this will not be satisfied with the new target, and it is possible that they misspelled Houthi. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Narc Cuban

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 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral redirect that is not mentioned at target. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep Comment. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, that's not enough to delete-- a non-neutral redirect may stand, even if not mentioned at the article itself, as long as the appellation is regularly used outside Wikipedia (i.e. it's not WP:NEO) and thus is a regularly used moniker. A quick Google searched revealed plenty of usage of this name-- albeit, all of it was attached to a specific event from May 2023 that saw Mark Cuban ask Twitter users if they were watching a pirate stream of the heats vs. celts game.
No clue if the moniker has stuck around well enough that someone might be using it as a search term a year later... what do you all think? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, quick aside: Usage stats for this redirect won't help as it was a grand total of 3 hours old when it was listed here. Whoops. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Outkick, USA Today, a lot more. I'm tla (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence that this nickname has been used since last May? All of the coverage seems to have been from around the time of the incident. Based on that, this seems to fail WP:NEO. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean on social media? (As Thryduulf mentioned below) TLAtlak 14:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2023 Formula One Esports Series

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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not used anywhere (one page in Google based on Wikipedia). This is a result of the move, but there is no meaningful edit history to keep. WP:R#DELETE #8 (very obscure) Викидим (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not only was the article at this title for the first 2 and a bit months after creation, but the main article is at Formula One Esports Series, the official website is titled "Formula One® Esports Series". The series did change name, but almost all the sources I found use the old name too, e.g. "The F1 Sim Racing 2023 World Championship, previously known as F1 Esports Series Pro Championship, is in its seventh season of competition." [11] so it's very clearly a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing the nomination. Will make a {{nac}}. This is my first NAC, so please check my actions afterwards. --Викидим (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Metaltronica

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. Jay 💬 07:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this term seems to exist, but not in the context of music, so a redirect to electroniccore doesn't make any sense FMSky (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A google search for 'Metaltronica' on its own does crowd the search with references to an Italian medical instrument manufacturer (which may be worthy of an article?), however, searching for 'Metaltronica music' does reveal that it is indeed used as a music genre title, by artists like FRANK NILE and DJ Mahoutsukai (although how related these two examples are to each other, and how related they are to Electronicore, may need some investigation-- I notice that FRANK NILE seems to be under the impression as of three weeks ago that he created the genre whole cloth, while DJ Mahoutsukai's work is from three years ago.) I'm not sure whether these two examples are enough to keep, and the Italian medical instrument manufacturer may require disambiguation. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dependence liability

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Dependence liability

Psychological addiction

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Psychological addiction

Sayyid Muhammad

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 08:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sayyid" (and other spellings) is an honorific; "Muhammad" (and other spellings) is a very common name. There are dozens of people who might be referred to as Sayyid Muhammad and this redirect has no one good target. Note Sayyid Mohammad, Sayed Mohammad are red. I suggest delete to enable Search to work uninhibited. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

CinemaWins

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. Jay 💬 07:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parody YouTube channel which seems to lack the secondary sources required to actually mention it in the article of the thing it's parodying. Talk:CinemaSins#CinemaWins? has some circular reasoning that we have to include a section about it because the redirect exists. I suggest deleting the redirect. Belbury (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on sources to substantiate a mention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bee and wasp stings

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 Arthropod bites and stings. Jay 💬 07:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-interchangeable title; this one, unlike Wasp sting, is one of those cases where it is very difficult if not impossible to have any valid target. The best I can think of is stinger or something similar. Awesome Aasim 02:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Antikaliuretic

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 Withdrawn. Nominator withdrew here (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 12:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, no immediately clear relationship to target. I suspect it would in fact fit on that page, but I do not understand the concept well enough to add it myself. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_22&oldid=1217519006"