Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uanfala (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 28 April 2023 (→‎The subcontinent: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2023.

Wilfred Clarke

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted since it gives the false impression that an article exists bearing this title. Even if an article existed, this Wilfred Clarke would not be primary since other men receive more frequent mention in Wikipedia entries. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 April 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).

Noogenesis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semantically incorrect redirection. Redirection to the article "noosphere", the name "noogenesis", which is not a synonym for the term represented by the name of redirection, and the article does not fully describe this term as part of a more general article. An article about "noogenesis", the concept, the history of its appearance, scientific research and development in modern times deserves, in my opinion, an independent existence. It may be advisable to disconnect "noogenesis" from redirection, designate an independent article "noogenesis" for further editing.DoubleNoo (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. You keep on saying "Semantically incorrect redirection" in various places but this doesn't seem to mean anything. We are not deleting this perfectly plausible redirect just to make space for what is very likely to be a spam article. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is a plausible search term, the current target isn't helpful to anyone as it doesn't actually provide any information about this topic. Some other language Wikipedias have separate articles which clearly aren't spam. Looking at the article the nominator created when overwriting the article, it doesn't look like spam either. In-fact, it looks like a partial translation of the French-language article. It's not flawless, but it seems unfair to dismiss it as "spam". – Scyrme (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason this redirect is up for discussion here is that an attempt to revert the redirect back to a rather spammy former article was reverted. Our nominator here has a clear COI and has just been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user making dubious articles about noothis, noothat and nootheother, including this one. Clearly there is good reason to be very suspicious. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong though. If there are valid articles in other languages, and those are not just subtle spam flying under the radar, then maybe there is a topic here and a bit of translation work might be worthwhile. That said, I think that having a walled garden of separate nooarticles is unhelpful. These are all related topics of minor individual notability, gathering them together into one place, one sphere, a noosphere if you will, still makes the most sense. DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone volunteers to translate content (or salvage it from partial translation made by this sock), I think deletion better addresses the issues we've both raised than keeping. A deleted title doesn't create a walled garden, and the deletion log would probably link to this discussion, providing context that might help if there are any future issues in this area. – Scyrme (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aeremin regarding the OP. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This term is neither mentioned or explained at target. The French Wikipedia has a separate article for Noogenesis [fr], the content of which suggests that "noogenesis" is an independent topic that actually predates the concept of the "noosphere". However, the same article also notes that the concept was discussed by Chardin, and so is relevant to the topic of the noosphere. This is affirmed by other language Wikipedias that also have separate articles for "noogenesis".
A redirect doesn't necessarily have to be "semantically correct" synonym of the targetl; it can simply be a subtopic or related term, which this is, however, for a concept like "noogenesis" there should at least be some material about that topic at the target to justify a redirect. Since there is no material, regardless of whether the nominator is a sock, I think the nomination is correct in that the title should be vacated until relevant content is added to Wikipedia, either at that title or as a section somewhere. Deletion would allow uninhibited searching and the creation of redlinks to encourage content edition, per WP:REDYES. – Scyrme (talk) 16:24, 22 April 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).

Template:Ous

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely abbreviation that is a confusing mess of alphabet soup. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 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).

Chinese Transliteration Redirects to Korean People

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patar knight No, it's the transliteration with the Chinese pronunciation and has never been used in Korea. Script doesn't equal pronunciation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The test for RLOTE is not use within the redirect target's home country, but a broader requirement for some kind of genuine cultural connection. Since Hanja characters are almost exclusively identical to their Chinese counterparts, I think that is sufficient for RLOTE. Generally, if you see something written in a foreign language, you should be able to find the relevant Wikipedia article by searching for a romanized version. As long as there's no errors, having such redirects is probably marginally useful at worst. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, people finding things written in foreign languages search using that foreign language's transliteration. Assuming that some Korean articles still use Hanja, readers of it will understand that it's Korean and search for its Korean romanization. Readers of Chinese articles should search up Chinese in their own Wikipedias. By this logic we should keep redirects of Tangnade Telangpu to Donald Trump and romaji redirects of Hanja. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously there are people familiar with both English and Chinese, and telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful. It's also likely that these users would not be as familiar with Korean and would not known the Korean romanization, or encounter the characters in a setting that is ambiguous as to the language or without sufficient context to otherwise identify the subject. Your examples can be distinguished from this case, and don't rebut my point that if there is a foreign term properly rendered in its native language, a valid romanization is an argument to keep per RLOTE. I believe RFD has in the past similarly kept Cyrillic romanizations of terms from other Slavic countries.
    Donald Trump is an American, and American English does not use Chinese characters, so this would fail RLOTE, though perhaps if it is covered, it might be redirected to an article on Donald Trump's foreign policy, Chinese use of transliteration in foreign policy, etc. The romaji case is more compelling, though perhaps too remote for RLOTE. It is both less direct, since Hanja => Chinese romanization is one step, but Hanja => Japanese kana => Japanese romaji is two steps (with an additional step if you want to factor in the linguistic history of kanji and hanja both being derived from Chinese), and would also be much less useful because of the much lower number of speakers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful, and so isn't deleting other redirects that fail RLOTE. To find the articles Chinese speakers can just type out the Hanja, they don't need to romanize it first.
    I get your point on English not using Chinese. However, Hanja to Romaji uses the same steps as Hanja to Pinyin. Pinyin is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Chinese characters mainland variant->Pinyin and Romaji is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Kanji (Chinese characters Japan variant)->Romaji. I do not see why you think Hanja needs to be converted to Japanese kana, which counts as an alternative "romanization" system with Chinese roots just like Bopomofo though it's more mainstream and covers more words, first. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are scenarios where it is might be easier to type in a romanization than typing hanja (e.g. lack of familiarity with/access to a hanja/traditional Chinese input system, encountering the hanja in a non-digital format). I guess if we account for simplified Chinese characters vs. the traditional ones used in hanja, it would be an additional step there, but many Chinese users would have passing familiarity with traditional characters or might be from somewhere where it is still used (e.g. Taiwan), which reduces that friction. My understanding of romaji, though I may be mistaken, is that although the pronunciation in all systems is the same, it is technically derived from the pronunciation of the hiragana/katakana versions of the kanji, so there is an additional layer of remoteness for RLOTE purposes. I'm not at all familiar with if the hanja used in South Korean names would be among the most commonly taught kanji characters, so perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, though the utility argument would still apply. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These scenarios are still too useless to obstruct RLOTE. Hiragana/Katakana is just a way to represent pronunciation. You can go straight from Kanji to Romaji. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, while researching more in depth for the above conversation, I found this article from Korea JoongAng Daily, with a brief mention of how Chinese tourists referred to the then South Korean president by the pinyin of her name in Hanja as opposed to a transliteration of how her name would be pronounced in Korean. They take pictures with their phones, and you can hear many of them talking with excitement about Piao Jinhui, the Chinese pronunciation of the name of President Park Geun-hye. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listed the previous RfDs for a couple of entries. A third relist because of minimal participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None Patar Knight's arguments are persuasive, in my opinion. I don't agree that because Korean hanja names are often written identically to their Chinese counterparts that this means there is sufficient cultural affinity to justify a redirect. By that reasoning literally all Korean topics could justifiably have pinyin redirects, since they could be written in hanja characters and hanja characters could be read as hanzi. In-fact, the same argument could be used to justify redirects from Japanese romanisations, since they could also be read as kanji. Could also justify creating pinyin and Korean redirects for Japanese topics, for that matter. It's a pandora's box, it's not helpful to English-speaking readers, and it inhibits the search results for anyone looking for Chinese names that share the same pinyin romanisation. (For example, there are number of Chinese people who share the name "Li Mingbo", although none have articles on Wikipedia yet.)
That pinyin can be easier to type into a search engine than hanja is irrelevant when Korean romanisations are even easier to type in for English speakers as they lack accents and would be more familiar to English-speaking readers looking for English-language information.
Chinese tourists reading Korean names written in hanja according to the mandarin reading of those characters has absolutely no bearing on whether there is a cultural affinity between these topics in English. The only thing it demonstrates is that Chinese-speaking people often know people by their Chinese name rather than their native name. As noted by Aaron Liu, that's true for people whose native names are English not just for Korean. I don't agree that because Korean names can be natively written in Chinese characters that this makes the Chinese names of Korean people culturally relevant for English-speaking readers.
If these Korean people were of dual nationality, Korean nationals of Chinese heritage, Korean residents of China, or were widely known in English by their Chinese name then there would be grounds for such an affinity. I don't think any of these is the case here. – Scyrme (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful, as indicated by pageviews. Fine with deletion if these transliterations are added somewhere in the respective articles, as search gets the readers to the target that way. J947 † edits 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptor (comics)

Not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously just hoping isn't enough to make it happen. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could re-target this back to Disruptor as an incomplete disambiguation. I'm not sure this is a valid broad concept, or just the name of three unrelated characters. Would be weird to have an English names page titled Disruptor – is that a given name or a surname, or just a nickname – and if it's a nickname do we really do articles about English-language nicknames?
Summary from the last version before redirection:
Disruptor may refer to:
Per WP:DDD, Don't include entries without a blue link. After removing the three red-link items, there's nothing left, thus a WP:G14. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian liberty

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 Christian liberty was converted to article, Retarget Christian freedom to it, and Delete Liberty, Christian. Jay 💬 12:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated target, misleading. The concept of liberty in Christianity is bigger that the target (e.g. Immortale Dei defines liberty as "a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object", and in Libertas it is defined as "[consisting in] that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law"). I therefore propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unrelated. The intention here seems to be the idea of private judgement, that is, freedom of opinion, regarding matters that aren't formally established as dogma. Adiaphora clearly relates to that topic. I do see how it could be a surprising target for some readers though, particuarly if they don't have prior knowledge or were expecting a different topic, such as Liberal Christianity or Christian liberalism(a redirect to Christian left).
I don't have an opinion regarding Christian liberty and Christian freedom, but I'd recommending deleting Liberty, Christian.
Liberty, Christian is in the format of an index designed to help navigate a printed work, specifically that of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Creating titles in the format of a print index is costly on several grounds, and entirely unnecessary on an online encyclopedia which is navigated principally through hyperlinks and a search engine. The redirect was created as part of Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. As I noted in a previous RfD for a similarly formated redirect (which ended in deletion), it's not even clear that creating redirects in this format was intended as some of the links listed on that project page are instead piped and link to their normally formated titles. – Scyrme (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the old dilemma, isn't it? Do I create the article in the middle of the RfD discussion? StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 22 April 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

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.[3] 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]

Deaths in 2024

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 💬 11:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. And not sure why it would point to the prior year target. Onel5969 TT me 08:39, 20 April 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).

Henry Clay Foster

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 💬 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Person was mentioned in this 2018 version of an article when the redirect was created. That content is no longer in the encyclopedia, so the redirect (most recently to Tiger versus Lion#Weight, a non-existent section of an article which is currently at AfD) is now useless. It was recently retargeted to a dab page, but as he is not mentioned there this is still useless. PamD 07:53, 20 April 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).

Redirects containing "language ()"

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "()" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete. These are simply the remnants of page moves; ideally rd's would not have been left when they were moved. I don't see any incoming links to worry about. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 20 April 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).

POSE ()

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "()" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:38, 20 April 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).

Bxvi

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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, nonsensical, extremely vague. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a typo for some word “b_vi”; it abbreviation of Benedict XVI is esoteric at best Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable search term, and the term "Bxvi" returns a whole lot of times that it gets used as an abbreviation for Pope Benedict XVI. See Rod Dreher, Aleteia, The Catholic Herald, The Catholic Weekly, et cetera. The reason it gets a large amount of pageviews is because this abbreviation gets used by Catholic folks who don't want to type out the full name (or, for space reasons in publishing, choose to use the acronym). This is a sensible redirect that targets the WP:PTOPIC for that search term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources that Red tailed Hawks found. I don't no why a heavily visited and unambiguous redirect should be deleted. Carpimaps (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - search results I got on my end affirm Red-tailed hawk's findings. Seems to be a common abbreviation. If kept, should be tagged as {{r from abbreviation}} (or perhaps {{r from short name}}) to avoid future confusion for editors like this. – Scyrme (talk) 14:09, 20 April 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20&oldid=1152135757"