Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Tavix (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 3 September 2023 (→‎Law & Order: New York: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

August 9

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 9, 2023.

Rules as written and intended

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Rules as written and intended

Rules as Intended

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Rules as Intended

Rules as Written

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Rules as Written

Velocitas 1897

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moot/convert to article. The redirect has been made into an article. A7V2 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

disclaimer I know I'm doing this all wrong, but since there is no redirect page in this case (I think) and I can't figure out what to do, I thought it best to leave the info here. I hope you guys can work with this.
When I typed "Velocitas 1897" (A footballclub in the Dutch city of Groningen) in the searchbox, it showed as bolded. However when I clicked on it, it linked to the sport section of the city of Groningen where this club isn't even mentioned. Deleting the redirect seems best IMO. --Dutchy45 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Skynxnex for fixing this. Dutchy45 (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dutchy45. This is a former professional club that returned to amateur soccer. It also won the national cup. Very notable. I will try to create an entry in the weekend. Meantime, please keep this nomination open as you're doing everything fine! Skynxnex, thanks for fixing this nomination. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 9 August 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).

Law & Order: New York

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Law & Order (franchise) - This is not the only Law & Order series to take place in New York. Plain Law & Order arguably has a better claim anyway. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be an alternate German name for SVU. I also found a usage in a 2010 Vulture article announcing the cancellation of original Law & Order, albeit somewhat informally. I suppose I could see this as a retronym for the New York-set series, which would support targeting the franchise, though most of them are still set in New York, so it doesn't seem like a very useful term. Deletion may be our best option. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, to the franchise article. The original series was referred to as L&O:NY when L&O:LA was launched. The revival series L&O is referred to as L&O:NY to distinguish it from the original run. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new dab if there are only 3 specific parts of the larger franchise known by this name but the current redirect is now inappropriate. — LlywelynII 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment except for L&O:LA, the other fiction shows and specials were set in NYC of the primary franchise; Of the remakes, there's on in Toronto, Paris, London, Moscow; so more than 3 are set in NYC -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the franchise, per the above comments this seems like the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a helpful redirect, as none of the series are actually named that. The whole original (not foreign remake) franchise save the short-lived Law & Order: LA has been set in (and filmed in) New York. It's non-descriptive and meaningless to have this redirect. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Disambiguate? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - stats show that the title has not been searched even once in at least 90 days prior to the nomination. It's not useful, and potentially confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all proposed alternative actions are possibly-wrong guesswork and, per Ivanvector above, there is no clear need for this to exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time the redirect was created in 2006, the target had a table that said the German version on the RTL II channel that premiered on April 28, 2005 was called "Law & Order: New York". A year later, Wikipedical removed the table with comment deleting extensive list per WP:DIRECTORY. Either retarget per nom by tagging {{R without mention}} or delete for now and recreate later if we bring back a mention at some article. Jay 💬 07:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ambiguous and implausible. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 16:59, 3 September 2023 (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).

2015–16 Bangladesh Championship League

[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. A move request has been opened to swap these titles. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion, but I'm not sure what to do here. This is a page move redirect - evidently this league's championship which ran from November 2015 to January 2016 is referred to by sources as the 2014-15 league, for reasons which aren't clear to me. The league's following championship, 2016 Bangladesh Championship League, is evidently also known as the 2015-16 league (it ran from October 2016 - January 2017). This shouldn't be deleted because it's a {{R from move}}, but I don't know where it should target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the redirect please rename the 2016 Bangladesh Championship League article as 2015–16 Bangladesh Championship League since it's the correct name. FNH004 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is clearly something fishy going on with the related articles since the 2014–15 Bangladesh Championship League supposedly ran from November 2015 to January 2016 (one of the sources for the league table describes this as the 2015-16 league, [1]), and the article 2016 Bangladesh Championship League says it was called the "Bangladesh Championship League 2015–16" but ran from 2016 to 2017. I think this needs to be sorted out before worrying about any redirects. Pinging Jesse Viviano who appears to have done various pagemoves and histmerges in this topic area. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The official logo clearly states that the league season was called the "2014-15 Bangladesh Championship League". Here are a few more articles referring to the league season by same name: [2] [3]. The source you are referring to is from the RSSSF and they named the season based on its duration, since thats what they normally do with all league seasons. FNH004 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a very hard time understanding how a logo existing for the 2014-15 season means that the season which took place 2015-16 is the 2014-15 season? It seems like this is some kind of error made by a source. A7V2 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to process a speedy deletion tag, and when I examined the articles, I found indisputable evidence of a cut and paste move. Trying to use the history merge special page failed because it failed to detect the correct time of the cut and paste move. I therefore manually worked on processing the requested page move and the history merge. The sources looked plausible, so I performed the requested moves. I don't know much more about which page titles are correct beyond what I worked on. I admit that I could possibly be wrong on the article titles, but at least I got the history merge manually performed.
    Anyways, please scrutinize the articles for signs of cut and paste moves, especially before you perform any more page moves. If you find indisputable evidence of cut and paste moves, perform history merges. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of 2016 Bangladesh Championship League.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nothing has changed since the last relist, and the one before that...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:29, 9 August 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).

Judo at the 2021 Summer World University Games – Men's 60 kg

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These redirects are misleading, as the come from either the target article itself or next to a link to it in another article. CLalgo (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medal Name Sport Event Date
 Gold Laura Ilie Shooting Women's 50 m rifle 3 positions 9 July
 Silver Larisa Florian Judo Women's -52 kg 6 July
 Silver Andrei Gag Athletics Men's shot put 8 July
 Silver Nicolae Soare Athletics Men's 10,000 m 9 July
 Bronze Vlăduț Simionescu Judo Men's open weight 4 July
 Bronze Vlăduț Simionescu Judo Men's +100 kg 7 July
 Bronze Bernadette Szőcs Table tennis Women's Singles 13 July
The reader can clearly see that the Men's +100 kg article exists while the Women's -52 kg doesn't. That ability will disappear if the red links will be turned into redirects. CLalgo (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CLalgo: I've suggested that these redirects can be removed from the target article, so I'll focus on the validity of the redirects. Sticking to specifically Judo, if we look at Category:Judo at the Summer Universiade, we can see that only two event articles have been created for Judo at the Summer World University Games (those 2015 ones mentioned). I believe this is a situation where articles are unlikely to be created, so creating a redirect to a relevant article with some relevant information on the subject makes more sense than leaving it permanently red. Though I respect that you may disagree. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: But keeping the redirects just make no sense. When ever they are used, they are always adjacent to a link to the target article. MOS:DUPLINK states that Generally, a link should appear only once in an article and continues to state but it may be repeated if helpful for readers such as in infoboxes, tables. In our case, the opposite is correct. This duplicate link not only doesn't help, but break MOS:OVERLINK An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding..

And please, pay attention to WP:REDLINK: It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Wikipedia articles grow.. CLalgo (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CLalgo: I agree that overlinking is an issue in this case at the target article. While your example with the medal table would include a DUPLINK, I think there are a number of use cases where DUPLINK isn't an issue. As an example, Andrei Gag's infobox includes a medal table with links to the general events (2015 Summer Universiade) and then the specific event they medaled in (Athletics at the 2015 Summer Universiade – Men's shot put). Redlink also states "Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." – I'd argue that while there is a possibility that standalone event articles could be created and considered notable, I believe it's unlikely in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: The example you've given is exactly why we shouldn't use the redirect. See Vlăduț Simionescu's Universiade medals. While both "2015 Gwangju" links target is Judo at the 2015 Summer Universiade, we can see that there is a sub-article for +100 kg but there isn't one for Open. If a redirect was made, this distinction would have been gone. CLalgo (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:23, 9 August 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).

Broom King (Kirby)

[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) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 23 July 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 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes#Dedede stone, where I have added an invisible anchor. Ca talk to me! 13:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it may have been intended as a comment in the above discussion? FWIW, both "Broom king" and "Dedede" stone are briefly mentioned at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 14:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: was it a miss from your side? Jay 💬 06:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that before the relist, "above discussion" meant WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Dedede Stone. Also, QuicoleJR has responded for both discussions at the "above discussion" with Replying to both comments here: I used the find tool on my browser and came up with nothing. This seems to be an issue with said browser. Jay 💬 06:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Whoops, apparently I did, and should've noticed that Ca's comment was misplaced. Thanks for letting me know. CycloneYoris talk! 14:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is unclear because everybody was confused.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:21, 9 August 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).

NYPD FC

[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 💬 08:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty useless redirect since no normal article redirects here, the only one that does is the target page which only lists it once in a list Michael H (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 9 August 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).

Ticket to Bollywood

[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. More than happy to restore if anyone wants to shepherd a draft. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film title to director redirects for a title not named in the target article. These were created in 2014 as articles, then got redirected to the director in 2019 as there was still no reliably sourced evidence that this film had ever actually been released or even gone into production at all, and as of 2023 that evidence is still lacking.
There's simply no point in hanging onto redirects for a film that's so dead that even the director's article doesn't deign to mention it at all anymore. If it ever does get completed and released, then we can start a new article when that happens. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm hesitant to delete something like this at RFD where there's an article in the history, but this wouldn't survive AFD. Ticket to Bollywood (TV series) should take the PTOPIC, whatever happens here – I'm slightly inclined to restore and AFD the current Ticket to Bollywood because of the history, while Ticket to Bollywood (film) has no good target and no history, and should probably be deleted as such. Swapping the TV series and undisambiguated articles could be done, but then we end up with a redirect with history that is completely unrelated, and that seems subpar. (Ticket to bollywood should be redirected to the TV series after this as well, that should be uncontroversial after everything, so I don't think it needs to be bundled.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ticket to Bollywood (film) per Skarmory, old title of Ticket to Bollywood. Un-BLAR and Move Ticket to Bollywood to Draft:Ticket to Bollywood (film) where it will be deleted after 6 months if there are no updates. Move Ticket to Bollywood (TV series) to Ticket to Bollywood, and retarget Ticket to bollywood to Ticket to Bollywood per Skarmory. Jay 💬 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, and move Ticket to Bollywood (TV series) to the PTOPIC, without prejudice to a REFUND request for the draft in the history. I fail to see the point in draftifying, since that just ensures a G13 deletion months down the line, and my usual rule for past article history is to pretend that the BLAR-er had PRODed instead, which would have worked since nobody has supported the existence of the article in over 3 years. @Jay: Does this work for you? * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed the film is being worked upon in which case there could be regular updates. Now I tried looking for information and while I found nothing new, I found reports dating from 2015. If draftified, I would be interested to add Production information related to the previous cast and director. Jay 💬 05:38, 1 September 2023 (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).

🛋️

[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 Transport and Map Symbols. Nominally no consensus, but a plurality of editors would appear to agree on this solution in the overlap between "keep with no problem redirecting somewhere else" and outright retarget !votes, as well as at least partially addressing the deletion concerns that find the current target inappropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The emoji represents a couch and a lamp. I don't think the character has a clear and definite meaning matching the target, as plenty of other rooms in a home or other space may have a couch and lamp. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had the same thought, but the corresponding "🛋" character already redirected to Living room, so I went with the preexisting redirect. Enix150 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that redirect. I've added it to the nomination, as the outcome is relevant to both redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no problem redirecting to someplace else. Emojis are valid redirects and should not be kept just because the current target is incorrect. Worse case, redirect to the emoji block. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Do you have a suggestion on where to redirect these emojis? WP:REMOJI mentions that glyphs without a clear meaning are typically deleted, and I don't see a clear meaning in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emoji#In Unicode is still a valid option. Gonnym (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Edward-Woodrow. Unlikely search term. WP:REMOJI says that redirects like these are usually deleted if the glpyh is unclear or its meaning difficult to determine, which I believe 🛋️ and 🛋 qualify as. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read that too, but in practice every emoji currently has a redirect on Wikipedia. Enix150 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this one is clearly ambiguous. Just because every emoji has a redirect doesn't mean it should stay that way. Frankly, all redirects from emojis annoy me, because I feel that anyone searching them on enwiki is either a) doing it for fun to see what they get, or b) trying to find information about the emoji (like at 🙂). Either way, redirects like these aren't helping them. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:50, 12 August 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).

Suimono

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Suimono

Rebecca Bettencourt

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Rebecca Bettencourt

806.4616.0110

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 16#806.4616.0110

Mycroft Project

[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 Features of Firefox#Mycroft Web Search. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 19:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of Mycroft Project before. Since it's an unofficial repo for various browsers, and all the major browsers require extension signing by default (meaning have to install them from the official repos), I don't think it would be appropriate to add an exteranl link to it in the Browser extension article. So I would just Delete it. -Pmffl (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ancients and Antiques: I've reverted your changes and restored the original target. Please do not make any changes until a consensus is reached here. CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should redirect to Features of Firefox#Mycroft Web Search. :) Ancients and Antiques (talk) 15:07, 16 August 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 ending with extraneous slashes

[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 💬 08:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects resulting from page moves, where the slashes have no affinity to the people in question. Unlike, for example, Genie (feral child, these redirects serve no navigational purpose and can be safely deleted. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:51, 9 August 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).

Coach lastname redirects

[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 mass deleted by Zzuuzz per CSD G5. These pages were all created by the sockpuppet Garralaga. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous search terms which could refer to a number of different coaches. Based on a search of Category:Coaches by sport, there are these many coaches that this term could apply to:

  • Coach Alexander – 19
  • Coach Andersen – 16
  • Coach Brooks – 16
  • Coach Donovan – 15
  • Coach Foster – 19
  • Coach Fox – 15
  • Coach Graves – 15
  • Coach Herman – 16
  • Coach Howard – 19
  • Coach Jackson – 38
  • Coach James – 19
  • Coach Jones – 73
  • Coach Joseph – 15
  • Coach Knight – 17
  • Coach McCarthy – 19
  • Coach Moore – 38
  • Coach Morris – 20
  • Coach O'Brien – 19
  • Coach Reid – 19
  • Coach Richardson – 26
  • Coach Sanders – 18
  • Coach Scott – 32

I believe they should all be deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:07, 9 August 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_August_9&oldid=1173693436"