Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedPanda25 (talk | contribs) at 15:52, 12 October 2023 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5#HermitCraft closed as retarget. There appears to be clear consensus to redirect to a different article which significantly mentions the topic.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2023.

Raye Richards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, as there is no mention at target. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had erroneously created this redirect based on their real name Brittany. There is a draft for them pending at WP:AFC. Redirect will have to be removed before the draft can be accepted. Filmforme (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 6 October 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).

Purple Line

Unused and implausible redirects, created by a user who was blocked specifically for creating bad redirects. See previous discussion of nearly-identical redirects here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Same rationale as my vote on last year's RfD that was linked: All commuter rail on the MBTA is signed as purple, but these lines are not called the purple line, as they're all different lines. It's one of those scenarios where the entire name of the target article is included within the disambiguator and a distinct lack of common references for these being called the "purple line", show to me deletion will not cause much harm. TartarTorte 18:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d'Ivoire,

There does not seem to be a reason to have a redirect with a comma at the end of the country's name. (The regular version of Côte d'Ivoire without the comma has justifiably existed for 11 years). Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually on second thought, this one is a lot more harmless than other types of WP:UNNATURAL redirects that I've seen. I think I'll leave the RfD up for now because the OCD was flaring when I first saw this, but in the grand scheme of things this redirect is not causing any major problems if its only a comma, admittedly. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miel Campioni

Miel is seemingly the younger brother according to [1]. However, such brother is not referenced at the target article, making this redirect confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of airline destinations in Colorado

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of airports in Colorado. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to include non-encyclopedic page into encyclopedic lists Fram (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to List of airports in Colorado: I guess a list of airports is for all intents and purposes a list of airline destinations, but it also has non-commercial airports there. Furthermore, this isn't the world's most likely search term, so if it's deleted I wouldn't mind too much, but I guess weak retarget as there is a somewhat appropriate target. TartarTorte 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could refer to a list of airports in Colorado, per above, or could conceivably refer to places airlines in Colorado fly to outside of Colorado. Perhaps the risk of confusion is slight, but this is also an awkward/unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE and per Mdewman6, or very weakly {{Wikivoyage redirect}} to wikivoyage:Colorado#By plane. Presumably what one expects to find under this title is a list of airlines and which destinations they fly to in Colorado, or a list of destinations and which airlines fly there. Neither the current cross-namespace target nor the list of airports in Colorado serve this function, and neither really does Wikivoyage, but Wikipedia is not a tour guide. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This redirect is useful.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak soft redirect, strong oppose keeping as is: Redirecting a mainspace title to a subpage of a WikiProject is entirely inappropriate. I don't think a list of airports is that appropriate, deletion is fine by me, but I think soft redirecting is the best option. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 15:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to WikiVoyage or redirect (equal preference, oppose keeping it as is). I don't think it's plausible that someone using this search term wants anything other than a list of destinations in Colorado served by airlines (if I were looking for that I'd probably be equally happy with one organised by airline and one organised by destination) and I don't regard it as an awkward or confusing search term (contra Mdewman6). WikWovyage or the list of airports are both imperfect but better than the status quo or deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of airports in Colorado. Reasonable target that's in mainspace of Wikipedia; I don't think the WikiVoyage (or project-space) list is necessarily better, anyway. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, retarget to List of airports in Colorado, or point to wikivoyage?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:19, 5 October 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).

إنفنيتي ورد

Arabic transliteration of company name; no cultural or linguistic connection. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, section 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and doesn't fall under the leeway provide for foreign language redirects under WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless someone can prove the company's connection with an Arabic speaking country/culture. --Lenticel (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod

German translation of title; delete per WP:RLANG. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was also the most popular film in Germany with admissions of 13 million, ranking third of all time lends sufficient affinity for the German language, in my opinion. I will note that the redirect is currently employed at Unter falscher Flagge. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Germans will presumably look this up on German Wikipedia. Redirects don't exist so that people can look up articles in languages other than their primary one but under titles that are in their primary language. Largoplazo (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect is not for Germans, it's for English speakers who encounter the German title. I gave one such example. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rationale given is faulty - WP:RLANG is an essay, not an actual policy/guideline. Guideline-based reasons to delete (WP:R#DELETE) are not met. Beyond that, one could possibly argue that it does meet #5 (someone finds it useful) under WP:R#KEEP, especially in light of Tavix's point above. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RLANG expands on criterion 8 from WP:R#DELETE: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. My comment is arguing that the film is not related to German culture, and therefore a German-language redirect should not exist. Judging from your reply, it seems my comment was too concise to actually engage with. I'm sorry for that. Also, I'd like some clarification: is "one could possibly argue" meant to signify that you're arguing in favour of keeping the redirect based on that criterion? ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A guideline-basedpolicy-based reason is that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a translation dictionary. If it were, and redirects were handled accordingly, we could have people adding thousands of redirects to each of a million articles on here. But it isn't and we shouldn't. The essay makes very good points and makes a good guideline whether it's an official one or not. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that "third most-successful film in Germany" is sufficiently close a connection to count as a linguistic affinity. I note that Das Dschungelbuch is not a redirect, though more than twice as many Germans went to see Disney's Jungle Book and that even had a German-American director. The only other language-based redirects to Once Upon a Time in the West are in Italian, which indisputably has an affinity. On the other hand, there's no redirect for Il était une fois dans l'Ouest even though the film had more views in France than Germany, and our article spends more time discussing its reception in France. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting a bit into the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST weeds. I think you make a solid case for the creation of those redirects, and would support their existence. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't consider "lots of people who speak this other language are familiar with or really like this subject" (paraphrasing another user's Keep rationale, above) a reason to provide a translation. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies, and the leeway given in WP:FORRED doesn't extend to this. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The film was dubbed into German. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fartnite

The A and the O are not particularly close to each other on a qwerty keyboard, so this does not seem like the world's most likely redirect. TartarTorte 20:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is clearly not a typo but an intentional derogatory misspelling. I'm not sure whether it's a notable enough for a redirect, but it should be discussed based on what it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the author "Fartnite" is a term often used for Fortnite as a joke. However, it is also a misspelling that could sometimes occur. That's the purpose of the redirect. EditorEpic (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a feasible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguably falls under WP:G10, as it is not a common term to refer to the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nopa

Nopa is not a "real" neighborhood in San Francisco. Notability is not established in reliable sources, because few sources ever mention it. The actual area is part of the Western Addition. Please see my further comments in Talk:List_of_neighborhoods_in_San_Francisco#NOPA on 8/20/2023. I also put a tag requesting sources and none have been identified. Hence, I believe this redirect should be deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George

No such grade exists in this specific order, would recommend deleting. Richiepip (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ss" for beta redirects

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Multiple redirects created by Eubot that consist of converting an eszett in a different redirect's title to ASCII characters. However, the eszett in these redirects is used as a substitute for the Greek beta – as "ß is a lot easier to type on most non-Greek keyboards than β" – rather than being a part of the name, so it is unlikely for this to be searched for. Randi🦋TalkContribs 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Weird Eubot redirects that won't be used as noted per nom as ß instead of β makes sense Ss as the expanded form of ß instead of β doesn't make a lot of sense. TartarTorte 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per conensus of previous discussion. I can't envision anyone ever getting use out of them. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and also confusing as 'S' has specific meaning in naming chemicals. ― Synpath 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the consensus at the previous Rfd linked above. Thanks for putting the rest of these together. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – FE-ss-CPPIT has been bundled into the nomination with similar reasoning, only differing in that a different bot has created the redirect. Randi🦋TalkContribs 06:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HermitCraft

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 Minecraft server#Notable servers. (Non-admin closure) RedPanda25 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 5 October 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).

Blue Chapman

Has multiple listed roles on Wikipedia, including at City of Ghosts (TV series) and Council of Dads (TV series). Would recommend deleting to maintain the title as a redlink, and encourage article creation if notable. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klaatu (Star Wars)

Background extra, basically not even a character. Not listed, and will not be listed at any point. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although this is a minor background character, it is still a character, and this redirect is helpful to anyone who wants to search for this character, no matter how minor and obscure they may be. No reason to delete. TypoEater (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No mention of this character, so this redirect is not helpful. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This character is not on the list, so anyone looking for information about them will get nothing but disappointment. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not Wookiepedia --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visagate

Visagate has no news search results relating to the Polish scandal on Google or DuckDuckGo. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's an alternative translation of Afera wizowa; as per discussion in Talk:Cash-for-visa scandal#Page title: Is "Visagate" appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Original creator of Visagate[reply]
    The fact that it's an alternative translation doesn't mean that it should be instantly kept. Other editors also pointed out the fact that no (reliable) sources used the term "Visagate" when referring to the scandal. Also, no actual article uses a "gate" prefix other than Watergate or Elsagate, for example. Though, my point is that you completely invented the term "Visagate" when referring to the Polish scandal, so for the lack of sources I nominated this. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 18:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no support for the “alternative translation” (by whom?) on the talk page. NM 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so you are the editor who came up with your original translation. I think you should have disclosed that. NM 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original title of the article, alternative translation that has seen use in the current WP:ITN/C discussion. Plus, given how recent the title change was, many people here might still be familiar with "Visagate", moving the article while deleting the redirect would just cause confusion. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would be familiar with Visagate and not know? The article was around for 1 day before being renamed to Cash-for-visa scandal.
    The only use that Visagate has seen on WP:ITN/C is discussion about whether it's appropriate. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 11:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it's an alternative translation doesn't mean that it should be instantly kept: it pretty much does; redirects are cheap. J947 † edits 02:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though there is literally no source to prove that Visagate is even being used by anyone to refer to this. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we should retain ones like this that make no sense. See WP:RDEL point 8: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful..."  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, this term doesn't appear in a single reliable source, and the Polish term Afera wizowa does not translate to "Visagate", at least according to any sources given. Sure, it was the article title for a short time, but other than that it's a pure Wikipedia neologism and an implausible redirect; by retaining this we would be according the name a status it doesn't have and therefore misleading readers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Visagate was completely invented by the creator of the article, as literally no sources (let alone reliable ones) used Visagate. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough the term does appear in reliable sources, but not for this... e.g. a story relating to the UK giving visas to Ukrainians, something about Marc Márquez not being able to travel to India, a US issue regarding green cards and various other things. So if anything those topics would be better targets for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT than this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we can disambiguate Visagate instead, since it can refer to other things, but definitely not this Polish scandal. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is shown to be an actual translation. As it stands, this appears to be made-up by the page creator. Disambiguation is also an option, if there are valid targets. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC), 03:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don’t make up new names that are clearly not from RS, thanks. NM 21:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify there are many scandals called "visa-gate" or "visagate" [2] so this should become a set index with references to the name visa_gate and link to the articles concerned with the scandals -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listify and include what pages? There are most likely no standalone pages for these events. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This redirect will become a new list (ie. listify) -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This appears to be a reasonable translation, and is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reasonable translation" How come no reliable sources use Visagate when referring to this? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 13:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance: Jinrui Botsuraku no Hi

Japanese translation of subject; unrelated to Japanese language or culture. Delete per condition 8 of WP:R#DELETE. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from deadname

I’m starting a discussion about this rcat redirect as I’m personally unsure as to whether it should point to {{R from birth name}}, as it currently does, or {{R from former name}} (or even potentially become a new rcat). I came across this discrepancy because I noticed that Bruce Jenner is tagged with {{R from former name}}, however the redirect {{R from deadname}} (which would - unless I’m mistaken - be suited for this redirect) redirects to {{R from former name instead. I welcome others’ thoughts on this. A smart kitten (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Bundled the avoided double redirect Template:R deadname into this discussion, which I didn’t realise existed until now. A smart kitten (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list last updated by user:A smart kittenmeow 09:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'd support retargetting to {{R from former name}}. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 12:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents now that I’ve thought about this for a bit. While a birth name will always (?) be a former name, a former name isn’t necessarily going to be a birth name. I know this isn’t CfD, but whatever happens here I’d also suggest making Category:Redirects from birth names a subcat of Category:Redirects from former names. (Can someone more experienced than me let me know if I ought to notify WP:CATP of this discussion, given it now involves potentially modifying categories?) I’m still neutral/undecided on whether Category:Redirects from deadnames or similar should become its own thing. A smart kitten (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait hold on, {{R from birth name}} states that it can be to a more common name or a related topic (my emphasis). Not sure about some of my previous comments now. I’m gonna notify Template talk:R from former name and then I’m gonna bow out of this discussion for now before I get even more confused. A smart kitten (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to R from former name or make it its own rcat. Deadnames are always former names but not always birth names. If we retarget, deadnames that are also birthnames should be tagged with both rcats. If we create a new rcat, such names should get all three rcats, unless we implement A smart kitten's suggestion. The documentation for the newly created rcat could at least explain this all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer creation over re-targeting, if it helps the closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some people actually have names made after death to represent them. Funerary names, tombstone names, and ceremonial names -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s fair to say that ‘deadname’ is the common name for the name a person was known by before transitioning, as indicated by our article on the subject, and uses of the term by RS: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] A smart kitten (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create template & companion category - I think this is enough of a unique situation to warrant completely separate treatment. Deadnames are not necessarily birth names: I can't think of an example, but a person could have gone by a name different from their birth name (a stage name, probably) and later abandoned that name as a deadname. On the other hand we can reliably say that all deadnames are former names, but the former names category also includes a broad range of objects and entities' former names, like former designations of space objects, or companies that re-branded; even in the narrow context of a person changing their name, deadnames are not quite the same thing. They could be a subcat, probably - we already have Category:Middle-earth redirects from former names for example, and looking at the category I think splitting out a subcat just for former names of people is warranted. If we do conclude that a new category should be created, I'll ask for an edit filter to be created to track and notify about any pages being added to it, because I'm sure it will be a target for harassment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New rcat per Ivanvector. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought about supporting a new rcat, but I'm a little worried about collecting all the deadnames in one place. Is there a real BLP concern there? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good point. Didn't think of that at all... Hm. Consider my !vote struck until further notice. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skarmory If that’s a potential issue, then would there be a similar problem with the redirect itself - as in, that such a list of deadnames would be available through ‘What links here’? To be clear I’m not trying to dismiss the issue, but just mentioning this because any potential BLP issue may already be present by way of the redirect existing at all (but don’t take this as a delete !vote!). Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be much harder for someone not already experienced with Wikipedia to find the "what links here" on a template redirect, so I'm less concerned on that front, but that could be a potential problem. I don't know that I'd be opposed to deletion myself on those grounds – the redirect is semi-ambiguous, and tagging with the more precise r from birth name or r from former name and not funneling all deadnames into r from former name may be better anyway, especially given the low use (only two redirects use these rcats, despite them existing since April and November 2021). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • new rcat: if having Category:Transgender people is fine, I don't see the harm in this; specifically because, if their deadname wasn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, per MOS:DEADNAME, so a new rcat shouldn't give new info that isn't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Doerakpoes (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving my thoughts here now that I’ve read the input from other editors (if any previous comments by me could be interpreted as !votes, then this supersedes them).
I agree with Ivanvector that this is a unique enough situation to warrant separate treatment. So my preference/!vote would be creation of a new rcat. However, this is based on the assumption that such a category wouldn’t be a BLP policy issue. Having said that, though, I am at least somewhat persuaded by the argument Doerakpoes makes in this regard, about the fact that we also have categories such as Category:Transgender people (I am very unfamiliar with BLP policy though, so feel free to not give this much weight).
Skarmory raised the potential BLP issue around collecting all the deadnames in one place. However, I have to admit I’m not sure what the specific BLP issue(s) with having such a category (e.g. Category:Redirects from deadnames) would be. Again, feel free to take this with a pinch of salt, as I’m not familiar with BLP issues, but I’ve noticed that what’s been happening so far is more of a general alluding to BLP issues, rather than references to BLP policy sections that such an rcat may come into conflict with. There’s nothing wrong with raising potential issues in this way, of course (I’d do the same thing if I was worried about possible BLP concerns, given my inexperience). However - now that other pages have been notified - if the discussion isn’t made aware of a specific part of policy that an rcat would potentially come into conflict with, I don’t see how references just to ‘possible issues’ would be enough to prevent the rcat being created (if that is the way the consensus leans). To stress, though: this is not in any way meant against any editor that has raised potential BLP issues in this discussion so far.
I have some more thoughts about how redirects from deadnames may work, but I’m putting this comment down first as I’m terrible at actually being able to write down my thoughts at the moment, and I want to make sure I actually got my main !vote down.
user:A smart kittenmeow 13:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some supplementary thoughts on how redirects from deadnames could work:
  • As far as I can see (I may have missed something though), there’s no specific policy yet that would apply to how notable a deadname would have to be in order for a redirect from it to not be deleted. In my experience so far, redirects are generally held to a lower standard than if the same content were inserted into articles (e.g. WP:CHEAP). However, given the issues around deadnames and BLP privacy, I would offer a suggestion that such redirects are held to a higher standard, and are only kept if the deadname is notable enough to be included in the article itself (per MOS:DEADNAME — [i]f a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page - my emphasis). My reading of the policy, including WP:BLP#Applicability, suggests to me that inclusion of a deadname will either be appropriate in all namespaces, or in none. (See also WP:BLPPRIVACY)
  • Regarding what to do if an editor encounters a redirect from a non-notable deadname: I’d suggest that this may be an occasion where the redirect should not be taken to RfD, in order to avoid the Streisand effect (also per WP:BLPTALK). Instead, I would propose that in this situation, Oversight should be contacted to evaluate the possible privacy issue - in the same way that they may be contacted if there was such an issue that arose in an article itself. (See also this archived VPPol discussion)
I’m really sorry for this jumbled mess of words and hopefully some meaning can still be drawn out of it; I’m really not doing great at wording things atm. All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? New rcat?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed the discussion since the previous relist, but I don't think the category is really a BLP issue. The guidance for the category would follow MOS:DEADNAME: if a person was notable under their deadname (MOS uses Bradley Manning as an example) then we include their deadname and a redirect is appropriate. If a person transitioned before becoming notable and isn't known by their deadname then we don't include it, and any redirect from such a name would be eligible for WP:G10 deletion per WP:BLP. Those policies apply whether or not we create a separate category for these redirects; we don't have to reinvent policy here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{R from former name}} per SMcCandlish and others above. There are many reasons that a person has a former name. Let's not split out this one, especially due to the potential BLP problems noted above. I think we're better to stay on the side of caution here. - jc37 21:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (sorry for another one): Of potential interest to this RfD, I opened a discussion at VPP about policies regarding what to do with redirects that are potential BLP privacy issues in and of themselves. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{R from former name}} per Jc37 and others. Even if collecting deadnames in one place is not a BLP problem (I don't know whether I agree with that or not currently) as Firefangledfeathers points out Deadnames are always former names but not always birth names, so this being a subcategory of birth names would be factually inaccurate - something that could potentially be a BLP issue of its own in some cases. [disclosure: I came here from the VPP discussion]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Retargeting to {{R from former name}} makes sense to me, since "deadnames" are not necessarily "birth names". While Ivanvector's suggestion of a separate template for a people-specific subcat of Category:Redirects from former names could also make sense, I see no convincing argument so far for a category specific to "certain former names of transgender people" and others above have expressed concerns over that idea. So even if the new rcat is created, I'd call it something like {{R from former name of person}} (with a category like Category:Redirects from former names of people) and still have these titles as redirects. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a better idea than mine, actually. Create the {{R from former name of person}} and companion subcat. This would also get all those names of people out of the parent category, which has over 23,000 members and where there are opportunities to further subcategorize former corporate names, former geographic names, former names of astronomical objects, and so on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't necessarily oppose this, I'm looking at the people section of Template:R template index, and I think most, if not all of those should probably then have "...of person" appended. Perhaps just close this as retargeting to "R from former name", and then do a follow-up group nom? - jc37 20:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:R from dead name also currently leads to {{R from birth name}}. I don't know how to add this to the discussed redirects myself. Doerakpoes (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recent discussions seem to trend towards retargeting to "R from former name"; relisting to have eyes on the new suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the {{R from former name of person}} idea. Allows for things like married name changes, etc. that happen but aren't commonly considered deadnames to be categorized along with deadnames, which reduces the chance of BLP issues, given there's something else lumped in there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is created, and I agree it's a good idea, then retargetting this there would make sense, but unless and until that happens {{R from former name}} is still the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera characters

There will likely never been enough source material for an article of this subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Redirects are costly so I'd rather see this deleted entirely. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The target section, so long as it continues to exist, is appropriate for the article. I feel the WP:BLAR was appropriate due to it not passing WP:NLIST, so it makes sense as a redirect to the section on the article about the characters. TartarTorte 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TatarTorte. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – how is this specific redirect costly? It redirects to the correct section, which has a list of characters. Redirects are cheap, too, and unless proven costly I tend to keep. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Latin comedy

Not every comedy written in Medieval Latin is an elegiac comedy. This makes the redirect misleading. Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Estonia relations

Not especially helpful, since the target doesn't have much information on Croation–Estonia relations per se; most readers would have to do a text search to actually find anything. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Croatia is listed first. Conversely, Estonia–Croatia relations (were it to exist) should target Foreign relations of Estonia. -- Tavix (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is systematic bias and discriminates against Estonia for no good reason, other than alphasorting. If there is not enough material for an article, then the redirect should just be deleted. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. If you're searching for Croatia first, then you have Croatia ahead of Estonia in your mind. Therefore, it makes sense to get Foreign relations of Croatia over Foreign relations of Estonia. The relevant information should ideally be the same at both articles because it's an intersection, so it doesn't really matter which article one goes to. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Óльга А. Лады́женская

The Ó at the beginning is actually Latin-script instead of cyrillic; delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Her name was written with an Ó instead of О́ in the Russian writing of her name on the page until I just fixed it, explaning the creation of said redirects. Having said that, these are pretty implausible and only seem to exist due to that being on the page like that. TartarTorte 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this was in fact the reason why I created these redirects. Thanks for fixing. I have created a new set of redirects with the proper spelling now. Regarding the old redirects, I think there is a better solution than to delete them, see below. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add R from misspelling. Since the Roman and Cyrillic letter look identical in many fonts, I don't think the misspelling is all too implausible - occasionally users might pick up the improper mixed spelling somewhere (like I did) and enter it into our search engine. It is better to still forward them to the correct article and educate them about the proper spelling than to come up blank as if we won't have contents about the topic. We also have a dedicated Rcat for this purpose: {{R from misspelling}}. Applying it to these redirects will even allow bots to automatically correct this would someone use the wrong spelling in articles. I have therefore applied the Rcat to the redirects in question. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as mixed script redirects, which have routinely been deleted many times over at RfD in the past. Duckmather (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per precedent with mixed script redirects --Lenticel (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neither accent/letter is native to English, so if someone is searching these terms in English wikipedia there's reasonable liklihood they won't know there's mixed script. Proposing based on common outcomes list and supporting based on common outcomes are both circular. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow belt

This is a procedural nomination started by 103.251.217.210 (talk · contribs). Their reason is "This is a slang name intentionally made into redirect and target redirect page doesn't make sense because some other states also come... I don't know how to create discussion but can you delete it or can you start discussion" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Article and send to AFD if deletion is desired. This spent over a decade as an article before an editor turned it into a redirect last year, following a contested prod. Given the extensive history as an article I think this should be evaluated as an article. A few searches show examples of this name being used in reliable sources, e.g. [9] [10]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suspicions that 103.251.217.210 is LearnIndology editing logged out to avoid their IPA topic ban, given they tried to get this exact same redirect deleted via speedy deletion quoting the exact same "this is just slang" "even though its been redirected it should be deleted" rationale [11] [12] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    what is the definition of cow belt? which states according to you can be considered cow belt? You know that it is a derogatory or slur term like bimaru state etc... & In Indo-Gangetic Plain, states like west bengal, delhi, punjab, parts of gujaat, Assam also come & why do you want insertion of offensive word to wikipedia? 103.251.217.210 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hindi Belt. "Cow Belt" is a colloquial name for this region, according to sources such as [13], [14], [15] (reliability not assessed) and it refers to the political divisions, not the geographic features. Relevant content from the former article could be merged there. It could be derogatory in the way that Bible Belt is sometimes used as an epithet in North America, but then WP:RNEUTRAL applies (we don't delete redirects just because they're offensive if they are reasonably useful). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that retarget to BIMARU states per the comment below. I didn't find that article when I looked yesterday but the sources I gave do suggest that the term applies to those states in particular, and not the wider Hindu Belt area. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to BIMARU states Cow belt is a degoratory used by leftists for UP & Bihar. State like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand doesn't come in cow belt even though it is in hindi belt. It has no reliable or scholarly sources available. DSP2092talk 21:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article debating this as a redirect when there appears to be an ongoing content dispute including an entire article history seems backwards. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Andrews Reserve

As per the discussion at WP:DELREV, @Govvy: has issues with the target of this redirect. As far as I understand their point, I think it is a good one, in that the reserve encompasses more than the football club. I therefore think that an alternative target of Dandenong, Victoria should at least be considered. JMWt (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget please, per nom, I've been around wikipedia for a long time and there is always something new to learn! But I feel people are understanding me now, regardless of the venue change. There may arise a similar issue at Green Gully Reserve which is AfD which also faces the same issues. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or else target to whichever of the two articles can have more information than they currently do, which is very little. Although looking at the article which was deleted, there probably isn't much which can be said anyway. A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dandenong, Victoria per nom. I agree that the venue is used for more than just as a football venue, so a redirect to the city is more appropriate. Frank Anchor 12:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I nominated the article in question for AfD, but have no objection to the retarget proposal above. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinnerbags

No mention of "dinnerbags", or even "bag" for that matter at the target page. Searching on Google brings up purses and other accessories one might take to dinner. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's not a term I've ever heard before, but googling suggests it (and "Dinner bags") is (possibly regional) British slang, e.g. [16], [17], [18], https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=98319.msg5080067#msg5080067 [this website is apparently on the spam blacklist]. A mention in the article wouldn't hurt though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Basically a "bag" is a derogatory term for a woman in the UK and as a result "Dinnerbag" is such a term for a Dinnerlady. Cexycy (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be a regional term, I should mention that at least for my region, there are no Ghits for lunch ladies when searching "Dinnerbags", so a mention at the target may possibly make this more appropriate, revealing to readers why this term isn't a synonym for "bags you take to dinner". Utopes (talk / cont) 21:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temples associated with the Seven Chakras.

WP:UNNATURAL title with out-of-place capitals and period at the end. Fixed via move. No incoming links. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per... weird new age capitalization. To me, this looks like a copy-paste search someone had issues with. Improperly proper nouned Seven Chakras doesn't seem that unnatural. Unless it's hiding other appropriate search results deletion loses more than it potentially gains. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security System (SSS)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The SSS disambiguator doesn't seem to do anything here, as it's the acronym for the title itself. And to this end, the Philippines aren't the only country to have a social security system, but maybe the existence of the disambiguator implies that Social Security System may have better targets on the DAB page. Or delete if the "SSS" specification does nothing (but maybe not this option due to the R from move). Addendum after adding second title; if the three capital letters have significance specifically relating to the Philippines version of social security and WP:DIFFCAPS applies, to me it seems that both of these titles should point there, at one place. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have since added Social Security System to this discussion, in the event that the inclusion of "System" in the title has a significance for either target. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMOS:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly a new pseudo-namespace redirect which was coined without consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Use WP:SMOS or MOS:SMOS or something instead. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was create, with consensus, as an alternative to "WP:" because the MoS was taking up too many mnemonic/recognizable shortcuts. There is no such issue with "Simplified Manual of Style", so no justification for a new pseudo-namespace for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is deleted, there are 9 other redirects in this pseudo-namespace which should also probably be nominated for deletion, but I'm unsure if bundling is a good idea. Those redirects are SMOS:A&Q, SMOS:ABB, SMOS:CAP, SMOS:D&H, SMOS:D&N, SMOS:MKP, SMOS:P&C, SMOS:REF, and SMOS:USG. As a further note, these 9 redirects all were created in 2015 by the same user, but that user is different from the user who created SMOS: which was created in 2023. TartarTorte 15:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those redirects could be bundled together but are probably best not bundled with this one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MOS:SIMPLE is available. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 6 October 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).

(The) Battle for Midway

These two redirects seem to benefit from a common target, as neither contains a "the" in the common title, although can still be referred to as such. There's a few similarly named pages listed at The Battle of Midway (disambiguation) as well, notably The Battle of Midway (film) which includes a "the", but not the "for". Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rattle his cage

Rattling a cage is an idiom, and does not appear to be highly associated with this particular race. Granted, this phrase does show up in the article once, as something Dale Earnhardt said during a post-race statement. Besides that though, as "rattling a cage" is used often outside of this context, there is also Rattle The Cage and Rattle the Cage which are different topics that directly refer to cage-rattling as part of the subject name. Or deletion, if no better topic can be found. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete. If there is no appropriate internal target (I've not investigated) this should be a soft redirect to wikt:rattle someone's cage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:rattle someone's cage per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator here and late reply: In NASCAR context/circles, the phrase is associated with the race. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 12:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am possibly a bit biased from being a motorsports fan, but this does seem like an appropriate target and what I was expecting. I think that rattling a cage is a distinct target from the rattling his cage as the latter uses a specific pronoun to differentiate from the general phrase of rattling a cage or rattling someone's cage. The quote in mention is at the article Labonte finished in 8th, and one lap down. Earnhardt's victory was subsequently met by boos and obscene gestures from the crowd. NASCAR officials reviewed the pass but decided to let Earnhardt keep the victory. Earnhardt later stated, "I didn’t mean to wreck him, I just wanted to rattle his cage a bit." so I think it should be fine to keep TartarTorte 12:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only usage on wikipedia not related to NASCAR (and specifically references to this moment) is in a plot summary for a novel, Mystery (novel). It appears to be in quotes, so I am guessing it did appear in the book, which is from before the 1999 race; however, the predominant use for this phrase is still in reference to this race. TartarTorte 12:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R13y

Apparently a software via edit summaries, but not listed anywhere at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Taking the first and last letters of a long word, counting how many letters are in between them and then replacing them with that number is a very common method of abbreviation that I've only seen used in software engineering contexts, c.f. I18n. In this case the word being abbreviated is "Reproducibility", our article about reproducibility is about the principle in scientific research, the article about the concept in the context of software engineering is at Reproducible builds. Anybody using this redirect is going to be looking for the target article, anybody who doesn't is very unlikely to encounter it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of football managers with most the games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be harmless, but this title existed for less than a minute before being fixed and is not just a finger-slip typo; effectively 7 characters are different. The search bar solves this with zero problems, as it would solve any other title. No reason to keep this, I think. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term. It took me a long while to spot the difference between these, for anyone else struggling the second and third last words have been transposed - i.e. "with most the" redirects to "with the most". Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf and WP:COSTLY. Even if someone were to search with "the most" transposed, this title would still likely come up as a top search target. (I can not currently do the search because it would go to the redirect, but a similar search for List of managers the at FIFA World Cup shows "List of managers at the FIFA World Cup" as the first result.) Frank Anchor 13:30, 6 October 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).

Faculty Maths,computer science and sciences of matter-University of Guelma

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remnants of a deleted article which got passed around from Faculty of maths,computer science -University Guelma to Faculty of mathematics,computer science and sciences of matter-Guelma's university. Deleted at this AfD discussion and then later speedied again. While this particular redirect does have history, it does not seem like history that is worth preserving while being a wildly unlikely search term for the current target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even ignoring the multiple errors in the redirect someone using this search term already knows that the University of Guelma has a faculty of Mathematics, computer science and sciences of matter. The target article contains no additional information about it, so even a grammatically correct redirect would provide no value, let alone this redirect. Additionally, as far as I can tell the University of Guelma is the only one in the world to have a faculty with these three disciplines in the title so it will be very easy to find using search results. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for multiple errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 6 October 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).

Sniff test

"Sniff" and "smell" are not mentioned at the target article. A multitude of other tests involve smelling or sniffing, including a number of AB tests and/or any test that involves determining a particular smell or odor, as some baseline examples. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or soft redirect to Wiktionary, While technically true, the nomination completely ignores (or is unaware of) the idiomatic meanings of the terms (which should probably be mentioned at the target), indeed "sniff test" has no other meanings listed at Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. In both cases Wikt mentions the origin of the phrase in actually smelling something, but gives a sense that the test is to see if something is proper/moral rather than to see if it is a rational/not-obviously-false solution. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change to disambiguation page - Template:Wiktionary redirect says it should only be used when "[t]here is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect". Sanity check is one appropriate redirect target. Nom argues a multitude of other tests also exist that would be appropriate redirect targets. If articles for those tests exist, we should be linking to them rather than redirecting off-site. If they don't exist, it should be left as-is because Template:Wiktionary redirect counterindicates this situation. (Full disclosure: I created these redirects) DefaultFree (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambig per DefaultFree - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Events in rail transport

Rail transport did not only exist in 2009. (The day is January 1st... 2010... all rails have instantly disappeared. The events have finished happening. It's over. The ships won.) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but ships are not so good on land – I think that the cars won really. Sore point considering yesterday's announcement — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spragg

Redirect created by a now-banned sock, to a poker player not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nobody of this name is mentioned on Wikipedia that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player is now mentioned at the target article and has potential for expansion. Iffy★Chat -- 11:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now there's a sourced mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia russia russia

This is just the word "Russia" three times. The three repetitions do not appear to be significant from Google searches, and this sequence is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My google might be biased as I'm located in the US, but searching google for "Russia Russia Russia" gives me almost exclusively information related to Trump's association with Russia and specifically his use of the term to dismiss the Meuller investigation. It's not the most common search term, but at least from my searching it was rather unambiguous unless it were to be retargetted to a more diffuse article about Trump and Russia rather than the Special Counsel investigation. TartarTorte 13:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get those results at all in my search; the nearest association was to an NCIS episode with that title. Everything else just was generic results about Russia for the most part. While you probably uncovered the reason why it exists, which I thank you for your help in that, I still am unsure whether this redirect will be useful for uninitiated readers, and may be possibly surprising to end up at an American-side investigation (especially given the fact that the only text in the title... is Russia). If this context was explained at the Mueller special counsel investigation page, this redirect would likely be more acceptable. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My search results were similar to Utopes'. Trump's dismissal was in the list (although sources disagreed on how many times he said the word) but equally prominent were reports of this being chanted by supporters of Putin following at least one of his speeches, the NCIS episode, discussions of NATO policy and two different podcasts about the Wagner Group uprising. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, my search from the Philippines for "Russia russia russia" just talks about the country in general. --Lenticel (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this is a redirect; in terms of literals, "not an" and "an argument" are not mentioned at the target page, nor does the article talk extensively about "arguments" in general. When turning to Google for answers, most results just show topics related to arguments as a whole, although Google Images does return some Molyneux memes with the phrase, so this might be a quote. Possible alternative targets include Argument simply for being the opposite of "not an argument", or either fallacy or formal fallacy, to which the former of these is the target for nonargument, while the latter is the target of logical fallacy. Or, if this phrase is not needed as a redirect, deletion may appropriate also. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:41, 5 October 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).

E.A.T. ( Philippine TV program)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improper disambiguation format; an WP:RDAB situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 5 October 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).

Cdbc

Is not an acronym for the target, and is no more of a typo for the correct acronym than any of the other items listed at the CBDC disambiguation page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Stratton Davis

Is not named Howard, nor is there any reference to a person named Howard. It appears that the article was at an incorrect name. Nevertheless, it is a confusing redirect.

To note: the matter of whether the name is "Harold" or "Howard" was discussed at the target talk page on Talk:Harold Stratton Davis. The point was raised that all journalistic evidence indicated the name was "Harold", while the only mentions of "Howard" were via Wikipedia mirrors, and not sufficiently backed anywhere else. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, but the article was at that title for nearly 6 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was all onboard with deleting this then it was pointed out the article was at that title for 6 years. That was a little jarring for BLP, so I was curious and found it has only been moved to the correct name for less than 3 months. Perhaps it will eventually be appropriate to delete this redirect; I don't think that time is right now. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DWKI-TV

A rather confusing case. The target is an article that, to the best of my knowledge, has been unrefenced since 2009. This particular title is not mentioned in the article's current state; although, it is unclear what the name of the page should be, and whether or not a redirect should even be present. (In regards to the name similarity, both of these titles are one letter off from each other. But when dealing with radio stations, there is a plethora of possibilities that are one letter off, generally speaking). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This station could once have been DWKI because the Philippines uses DW and DZ call sign prefixes on Luzon. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting)/Call sign appendix, whose Philippines section was informed by material I received directly from the NTC.) I lack the country-specific knowledge and am pinging WayKurat, whom I trust for PH broadcasting topics. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Bureau

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeably a redirect from a page move; this new article about Chinese espionage in China no longer mentions a "California Bureau". Simultaneously there are multiple bureaus within California that this title could refer to. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:55, 5 October 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).

Säästöpankki

Finnish-language translation of term; subject unrelated to Finnish language or culture. Delete per condition 8 of WP:R#DELETE. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Genuine question: what harm does this redirect cause? J947 † edits 02:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The general reason is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, including Wikipedia not being a translation dictionary. Exceptions are covered by WP:FORRED. The alternative would allow thousands of redirects from other languages for every article. Largoplazo (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which would be bad because? J947 † edits 02:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Largoplazo (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which applies to articles only. That section is entirely about dictionary definitions. It's absolutely irrelevant to the merits of foreign-language redirects. J947 † edits 22:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFOREIGN, WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary for foreign terms to general topics or topics from unrelated other third languages or English-language topics. There are many foreign language terms with the same or similar spellings as different topics in English and other foreign languages, so unrelated foreign language redirects would cause ambiguous name collisions for not a good reason, when such uses could be sorted out at Wiktionary instead, which would backlink to Wikipedia for their topic articles. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{R with possibilities}}. See Finnish banking crisis of 1990s and compare Sparebank. I don't remember adding this redirect in 2015, but I presume it was a redlink in an article. It still appears in several. jnestorius(talk) 06:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:FORRED. In addition, Finnish banks aren't even mentioned at Savings bank, so if the rationale for this redirect is that the term might be entered by someone looking for information on savings banks in Finland, they'll be left hanging. Re Jnestorius's remarks: Finnish banking crisis of 1990s refers to "savings banks" and uses "Säästöpankki" only where it appears in names. As for Sparebank, I'm considering proposing a move to Savings banks in Norway as I see no reason to have that article under the Norwegian term, any more than Architecture of Italy should be titled Architettura. Largoplazo (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've proposed the move from Sparebank. Largoplazo (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to propose that Sparebank be deleted or that it remain as a redirect to Savings banks in Norway? jnestorius(talk) 17:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it should be deleted. As I said above, we don't have Architettura as a redirect to Architecture of Italy. Same thing. Even worse would be to have Arquitectura redirect to Architecture of Spain, given that we also have Architecture of Mexico and, turning to a country with a different language but the same word for "architecture", Architecture of Andorra. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One difference is that architecture is the same thing in any country, whereas the various subtypes of financial institution differ in different jurisdictions. jnestorius(talk) 12:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think architecture in Thailand, India, Morocco, and Finland is all the same? There are many differences, as there are with the specifics of how banking words in different countries, yet the same English term is used when talking about them in English, as is the case for savings banks. In addition—and this is the third time I'm pointing this out to you, here and at Talk:Sparebank—even the Sparebank article exclusively refers to its subject as "savings banks" after the second sentence. In English, they're savings banks. Just as säästöpankki, in English, are savings banks. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think architecture in Thailand, India, Morocco, and Finland is all the same? — no, I'm not an idiot. I had hoped that a co-operative reader could find the non-idiotic interpretation of what I said. If, like me, you are not an expert in Nordic banking, then I think it's as well to leave the native-language redirect in place to allow for the possibility that the native word doesn't quite map to its English-language equivalent. If you are an expert in Nordic banking, then I bow to your knowledge, although you might add more value to Wikipedia by improving the articles' content rather than worrying about a marginal redirect. jnestorius(talk) 19:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Architecture = the style and structure of buildings. Savings banks = institutions traditionally or primarily organized as places for private individuals to deposit their money. In both cases, nation-specific regulatory and operational details are superfluous to the general meaning. The distinction you're drawing is specious ("idiotic" was your word, not mine). Further, would you like me to point out for the fourth time what I've already pointed out three times? To that point, let's add that we also have an article named Norwegian Savings Banks Association. It isn't as though I'm making up the equivalence. It's curious that you keep denying it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland. List of banks in Finland#Savings banks seems to be a good spot to formally define the general term. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland which covers both the general and particular cases. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland. J947 † edits 02:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_5&oldid=1179810650"