Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6

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 16:42, 12 October 2023 (→‎McNamara). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2023.

Ad1das

This isn't really WP:R3'able in my mind, but I have not been able to find really any usage of Adidas typed in leet speak. It seems to at best be used in some listings on online stores, but nothing that really stands out as a common mispelling of Adidas. TartarTorte 20:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete recently created deliberate misspellinng. I would think that Ad1d@5 would be more likely than a single character substitution, in 1337-Zp33q -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Street

I made a WP:BOLD change to convert this into a disambiguation page but was reverted. Jane Street Capital is commonly referred to as "Jane Street" for short, and is thus a contender for primary topic. I'm not sure if it is actually enough to be primary above all else, but at the very least the Toronto street certainly is not the primary topic. I'm fine to either disambiguate or retarget to Jane Street Capital. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream hoarders book

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. (4 of 4) MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 19:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this redirect just adds the word "book" after the title. with WP:CHEAP in mind, there should be room for this. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream haorders

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. (3 of 4) MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 19:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

common or easy to make typo can be allowed as a redirect as long as it is not very unlikely etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more or less likely than any other transposition of letters, and no evidence that it's particularly common. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: plausible misspelling; harmless. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that the correctly spelled version Dream hoarders doesn't even exist, this redirect has no utility. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep a single character transposition in the all-lower-case form of the term, so a likely form of typo -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't have Haord for Hoard, Haorder for Hoarder, etc. Hoard is not prone to typos, much less vowel transpositions, and there's zero need to have r from typos from similar titles either. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream hoard

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. (2 of 4) MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this one is just common as i was writing the article i notcied that i would not finish the title occasionaly and just dream hoard would be easier as a redirect. Same thinking as WP:CHEAP. Unless this has a better different page, but I think if any redirects for discussion for this page end up getting deleted, this would be the one. i think we should keep the others. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream hoarding

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. (1 of 4) MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

common or easy to make typo can be allowed as a redirect as long as it is not very unlikely etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is most likely to cause confusion. The -ing form and sentence-case combine to make this look more like a phrase than anything else. Granted, the phrase seems unlikely to be used, but I don't think swapping -ing for -ers is a particularly likely mistake to make either. I'm neutral for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google shows that there are plenty of articles etc that describe the subject of this book as "dream hoarding" (i.e. what dream hoarders do) and it doesn't seem to be used for anything else we have an article for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's needed for something else that becomes notable and verifiable it can be used for that. Otherwise, not harmful. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suck my cock

The redirect is absolutely nonsensical. I think we can all agree that nobody is going to search "Suck my cock" in order to find the page 'Fellatio'.

This redirect was nominated for deletion before, for the reason that it's a somewhat vulgar term. The reason why I put this redirect on RfD again is that the term has little to no relation to Fellatio and is basically useless. It is a mere sentence that has nothing to do in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I request this article to be immediately deleted. EditorEpic (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look up suck_my_cock in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Comment it would seem more likely this should redirect to some article on insults or profanity, as this phrase is used as an insult usually instead of as a sexual command. If there is a list article listing such insults, it should be targeted there. Or we could soft redirect to wiktionary -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a good idea to redirect a popular slang phrase to a literal target (it's like converting Pain in the ass into a redirect to Rectal pain, for example). On the other hand, the IP's proposed targets of Insult and Profanity are way too broad to be of any usefulness, and in any case those articles don't mention the phrase. I lean slightly towards turning it into a soft redirect to Wiktionary, on the basis of it apparently meeting all the four criteria for the creation of Wiktionary redirects. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Dsuke1998AEOS. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Soft redirection is better than deletion though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard Keep, forgive me, but all of this on this subject about a "soft" keep or "hard" keep, I could not resist. but in all seriousness, i chose keep because it looks like this was discussed before and what new information do we have since then? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entire nom is to WP:CENSOR; WP:GRATUITOUS doesn't come close to this. Nothing about the nom suggests that there was value to re-litigating previous clear consensus, and it should probably have been speedy closed, neverminded relisting the reopened discussion. There may be some value to discussing appropriate target. If we want to have a discussion about alternative meanings and possibly turning it into a disambig, that's probably justifiable. However, all those connotative relationships should probably be covered in the Fellatio page anyway. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need for disambiguation as the article title is a simple description of the act, similar to Wash your hands or Run naked. RedPanda25 15:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Pokémon anime series

No links and time dependent, this will change once the next one is announced MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 15:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page views indicate that the utility of this redirect has ended. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Also delete Draft:Upcoming Pokémon anime series along with it. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft page should be kept per WP:RDRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there's a new Pokémon anime series announced. Why would this one still be "upcoming" if it's already been released? Regards, SONIC678 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and the same logic holds for the draft redirect, so delete that too. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DIT

No mention Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 10:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The former name of the target page is Wikipedia:Dynamic infobox templates where it was for a year in 2006–2007. There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity, the only other page with the same initials I've found is WP:Don't ignore threats, a disambiguation. May be kept as a historical relic, though it doesn't seem to have much use now. Randi🦋TalkContribs 11:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a more useful WP:Something#Something target for this, then it would be fine to usurp this; we created the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace because MoS was taking up too many of the mnemonic/sensible "WP:" shortcuts. However, there is not useful other target for this, leave it alone as harmless and historical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 29 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 13:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice to a future retargetting if something more deserving arises but leave it alone until that happens. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Thryduulf. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive carp

I feel this redirect can be interpreted vaguely, as this topic is discussed at many different pages. In the section at the current target article, North America is the only location that Asian carp is listed as an invasive species at. To this end, Asian carp in North America is an article currently dedicated to this topic, which could warrant its target. There's also the Asian carp entry at the Invasive species in the United States page, or the substantial invasive species section for Bighead carp#Invasive species and other similar carp articles.

Currently, I think the vague-ness of "invasive carp" as a search term could be a hit-or-miss surprise-box for readers, and I don't think a title such as this would be very likely to be searched for that reason as there's many different carp species that are considered invasive. (People with a target in mind would type in the carp and not leave it to a possible guess.) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other carps considered as invasive, feel free to convert the redirection to a disambiguation page.
When I create a redirect, it's because I hear or read about something and can't find it in Wikipedia. If there's already a disambiguation page, I just add an entry.
Note that in this case, "Invasive carp in the United States" doesn't exist either (not that someone is likely to search that, but the search suggestion could be useful). The RedBurn (ϕ) 06:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 4 types: bighead carp, black carp, grass carp, and silver carp, are collectively known as Asian carp, as noted in that article. - There are several references for this. [1], [2], [3], and many more. - jc37 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to do here. Goldfish are also an invasive carp in North America, as noted in that article's lead. Are there other examples? We may need a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure either - Goldfish are also from Asia. Maybe they should be noted in Asian carp. But in the meantime, maybe the best answer would be to make Invasive carp into a dab page. - jc37 00:48, 4 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 13:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice to future disambig if alternative targets are identified. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor country

A poor country is not a developed country nor a developing country. A developing country is termed as middle income country by the World Bank. A poor country is instead classified as Least developed countries. So redirecting poor country to developing country would be factually wrong. So the redirect should be changed to Least developed countries, which World Bank classifies as Low Income Countries. - Crashed greek (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Least developed countries. I don't think the current target is inappropriate because although not all developing countries are poor countries, poor countries are developing countries. The term "Least developed countries" is a subcategory of developing countries. However since that subcategory relates more specifically to the search term it makes sense to retarget. Hut 8.5 18:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, (Developing country). It is incorrect that a poor country is not a developing country. The article Developing country makes it clear that there is no universally agreed definition of "developing country" but discusses the terms "developed" contra "developing" with no indication that there is a third group of countries that are so poor that they do not even count as developing. Given that there are no set definition of what countries count as "poor" or "developing" I think that the reader is best served by a redirect to the general article from which he or she can continue in the direction they want.
It would be misleading to redirect to Least developed countries since that is not of list of the poorest countries. Least developed countries is a very specific list of countries kept by the UN, where gross national income per capita is only on of three criteria that decide if a country is included. (The other two are an index for health/education and an index measuring the structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks.) For instance, Syria which is in the low-income group of List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita is not on the list of Least developed countries, but Laos which is in the lower-middle-income group is on the list. Sjö (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMF clearly has separate classification as low income countries, [4], the drop down list has only poor countries. And IMF has separate classification for middle income countries [5] too. Same with UN which is Least developed countries and Middle income countries [6] with income range with both upper and lower thresholds of $1,036 and $4,085, below that are least developed countries. Same with World Bank, which further divides middle income countries as lower middle and upper middle. All three reputed organizations have the "poor country" classification clearly, without any ambiguity as you claimed. While wikipedia has poor country article of UN, it doesnt have world bank and IMF ones, though the latter 2 have clear classification for the poor country. So it would be appropriate to redirect to the UN poor country, than the developing country which mainly corresponds to middle income country. That would be good until or unless separate poor country article is created. Crashed greek (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent the sources, please don’t do that. None of the sources you mention call the least developed countries poor, and they do not have a clear classification for ”poor country”. Sjö (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not misrepresent the sources. All the lists of UN, World Bank and IMF you can see the list of countries, they are all almost the same countries group with lowest GDP per capita. You are just doing mental gymnastics here in wrongly accusing me. Crashed greek (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article developing country (at least its intro) discusses "low and middle income countries" or "developing" contrasted with "developed" countries. "Least developed country", according to its article, is a subcategory of "developing countries". This redirect should point to the broader topic (developing country). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Developing country article clearly says it is not a universally agreed definition in the lead section. Generally undeveloped countries are not included. Crashed greek (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source that supports that generally undeveloped countries are not called developing countries. It would benefit the discussion if you specified the page number or quote that supports your statement, if the source is longer than a couple of pages. Sjö (talk) 12:10, 2 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 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fish ribs

While this dish is made of fish, this food is seemingly named "buffalo ribs" and not "fish ribs". With that being said, I feel this description of "fish ribs" could be equally plausible to join alongside redirects such as Fish heart and Fish skeleton, which currently point towards Fish anatomy.

Alternatively, Ribs (food) may be specific enough to refer to the fish ribs as something eaten beyond how it is at the current target. (To this end, "buffalo ribs" seems overly specific as a target, and is only linked to a seemingly random menu; contrarily, searching in a search engine returns all sorts of varieties beyond buffalo.) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if kept at current target, a hatnote should be added to Fish anatomy or Fish anatomy#Skeleton. Ribs (food) would seemingly be a reasonable target if only it had more discussion of fish specifically (with the only example given being the current target). A7V2 (talk) 01:42, 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 13:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote (per @A7V2). Unless we have traffic data that shows the term is more likly to be searching fish anatomy this seems like the more likely and harder to find target. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munsey Park Plaza

The article for Kimco Realty makes no mention of the plaza that it is located on, whereas the article for Munsey Park, New York does talk about the plaza. Information about the plaza itself seems to have a better home on the page about the park. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Munsey Park, New York, where it is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – While the article on Munsey Park (which is an incorporated municipality and populated place – not a park) currently mentions Munsey Park Plaza while the article for Kimco Realty currently does not, I had made the redirect to the Kimco article as it is owned by Kimco; to me, it seems more appropriate for it to remain targeted to the Kimco article (but maybe that is just me). I do, however, also understand – and see very valid points made through – the above arguments, which have a lot of merit. While I am inclined to argue that it should be kept as is, if the consensus is otherwise, I do not see any harm in retargeting it to the Munsey Park article (and, in that case, perhaps if the Kimco article (or a future, related list article) eventually does include information on (or list of) KIMCO's properties, then it can again be retargeted there). Just my two cents; I have no objection, however, to the proposal above, if that is the consensus which is ultimately reached. -AITFFan1 (talk) 19:00, 29 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 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Redirects are a reflection of what content Wikipedia actually has, not what people wish it would have. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been there done that messed around

Seemingly a lyric which is not mentioned at the target page. Could be a possible extension of the phrase Been There, Done That, although I'd recommend deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is no requirement for the redirect to be mentioned at the target. It's very common for {{R from lyric}}s to not be mentioned, as lyrics should only be "used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style", especially if protected by copyright as in this case. It doesn't seem to be ambiguous and it is very associated with the song described on the target page, it is a very plausible search term as well. Randi🦋TalkContribs 07:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment - I would like to point out that "R from lyrics" are exceptionally uncommon on Wikipedia, and are often rarely used with only 140 transclusions. As linked above, Wikipedia is not a lyric database; nor should there be an indiscriminate amount of lyric redirects to songs that do not demonstrate a need to have such redirects. For that set of titles tagged as R from lyrics in particular, I would roughly estimate about 50% of them have no reason to exist, and don't add anything to enhance the wiki besides being a WP:PANDORA's box that google searching already answers. Trying to determine "what song consists of these first six words" is not Wikipedia's job.
Generally speaking, I don't think creating redirects for the first X words for any typical song, or book, or poem is at all necessary, and there is no reason to suggest it is necessary here. Unless the particular line or lyric receives attention and coverage at the target page, to me it there is no demonstrated need to have redirects for every chorus that has an article on Wikipedia, as the encyclopedia entry is listed under the song's name and not the lyric that is sung the most. (On a side note, another redirect category that is very often misused in this manner is R from catchphrase with 170 transclusions, which has a similar approximately 70% necessity amount, as a personal estimate.)
In regards to what the "R from lyrics" template states, it says that redirects meeting this description should only target either A: "Song article [which describes the lyric]" or B: "Other article that describes the lyric". In my opinion, redirects that exist as an R from lyric SHOULD be mentioned at the target page in some capacity; else it would be confusing for people who typed in the term and aren't sure why they were redirected there especially if that title isn't ever alluded to. Just because it's "common for R from lyrics to not be mentioned" doesn't make it correct. A sizeable number of those redirects do mention the lyric, and/or are close to the actual name of the song, and/or are significant lyrics in their own right. Redirects should take people to articles where their internal questions get answered, and at the moment this does not seem to be the case for this title.
(Lastly, the evidence does not seem to support the plausibility of this search; at the time of nomming, the redirect only had 4 pageviews in the last month, and I'm fairly sure that at least 3 of them were me coming back to it during page curation.) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:04, 30 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 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vague term, not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randi Moth. I'm not seeing any evidence this is a "vauge term", and WP:PANDORA is misleading and best and disruptively incorrect at worst - every redirect is evaluated on its own merits, with the presence or absence of similar terms playing essentially no part in the evaluation (c.f. WP:OTHERSTUFF) and there is no evidence keeping or deleting redirects is at all relevant to whether people create or don't create similar ones. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Thryduulf. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amtryptamine

These are all correctly targeted if you can guess what these are attempting to abbreviate, but these sorts of abbreviations, without any hyphen or capitalization to separate the prefix from "tryptamine" is not used and is confusing. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 18 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) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep moved to Neutral, as these seem harmless if they are correctly targeted. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 4 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 13:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as well. Redirects of the properly spelled variations exist and these still see a tiny amount of regular use. ― Synpath 20:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amtryptamine and Amtryptamines, weak keep the others. The combined lack of hyphens and confusing shortening of the methyl abbreviation push it over the line to unlikely and non-useful typo. ― Synpath 17:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody abbreviates methyl as "m", in part due to it being the abbreviation for meta. Even if they did, the lack of hyphens just makes these barely intelligible, and suggesting these are acceptable alternative names for the compounds, which they are not. That combined with the ASCII "A" instead of "α"...these abbreviations attempt to condense too much into a few extra letters just added at the beginning of "tryptamine". Some were incorrectly targeted; I retargeted them before making the batch RFD. I understand the tendency to defer to keeping harmless redirects, but I really do not view these as harmless, i.e. we'll be better off without them. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting latin characters for greek characters and using short-forms is a default assumption of mine when searching for compounds. Dropping the occasional hyphen is an expected typo. To me that makes the formation of most of these redirects just good enough to keep since they are used (barely) even with more correct, more common variations existing. Though, now that you point out the Me vs m (meta) comparison I see that that is properly confusing. I'm guessing it comes from generalizing the name Etryptamine to alpha-methyl groups mistakenly. Searching google for that name only pulls up tumblr sites funnily enough, I'll update my comment above. ― Synpath 17:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving to neutral on all 6 to align with Mdewman6's judgement here. If they get in the way, they get in the way, (and should be cleaned, as) organized and consistent sets of redirect names are appreciated. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Vaňková Kvitová

Only mention of "Vaňková" at the target is in the context of another player. No evidence this is an alternative name. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bonker 9000

Seems very unlikely to be necessary OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget although this is not mentioned at the target, it is mentioned at NAFO (group) which will educate anyone wanting to know what this is about. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Sant Agustí Vell)

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:CSD#G6, created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural parenthesis, immediately moved away via a "key error" edit summary. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:59, 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).

Redwood (the band)

This could be retargeted at Redwood (band) but is probably better deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That history from 2009 would have no hope of surviving Afd, so I think safe to delete here per WP:SNOWBALL. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C100H202

This... feels pretty excessive. None of the other 99 straight-chain alkanes with less atoms are redirects to this title. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My first reaction to the nomination is "So?". Redirects are WP:CHEAP and WP:OTHERSTUFF existing or not existing is not a reason to keep or delete. In the absence of any identified harm or confusion caused by this specific redirect I'm not seeing any benefit from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Off-topic-ish) but I started to write a response but then I spent half of it going on an analogy about counting beetles, so I think this is the signal for me to sleep and rewrite it tomorrow or something. 😅) Utopes (talk / cont) 09:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: C100H202 is also listed at List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+. It's not clear to me that either list is particularly useful for someone searching for that specific compound, but neither seems like the obviously correct target to me so we may as well give readers access to both. Not that anyone is searching for it; it's only had three pageviews in the past 60 days, and seventeen in its entire history. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to remove interference to Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The current target is correct; it matches the redirect target of hectane, the name of the straight-chain isomer. Anyone searching the formula will learn how many isomers exist and the name of the straight-chain isomer, which is the most enwiki has to offer currently. The only unique content at the less specific List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+ is the CAS number of hectane, which is only of interest to those who already know other ways to find this. All that said, given how little content we have about compounds with this formula, I am not strongly opposed to deletion either. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the reason this exists is that hectane was originally a stub, and this redirected there. Many of the analogous molecular formulae less than C60 target higher alkane, with those lower than ~C30 usually having their own articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to information on this being listed at the target. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, I have no issue with the other redirects being created. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mentioned at multiple targets without substantial coverage at either. Clear for search and redlink. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek (meme)

Incredibly vague term that can point at all different types of Shrek related media. All Star (song) is a Shrek meme. Shrek#Cultural impact references Shrek memes. Can be interpreted in a multitude of ways that I don't think will ever be completely satisfying. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ards Peninsula (District Electoral Area

Missing closing parenthesis, with no incoming links. An WP:RDAB situation. I'm beginning to ask myself whether there is any easier way of finding the set of redirects that meet this description... Utopes (talk / cont) 06:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrard Island

I can't find any evidence of this island. It was created as a circular redirect at the target disambig page, which only linked back to the same disambig page. The link itself was introduced the same day and replaced a previous entry without explanation. The entry it replaced (which I have since reverted) referred to Gerrard Island as an islet off of Peng Chau, where it was not mentioned anywhere. Some author blankage happened back in July (possibly eligible for G7), which was reverted, and an A3 speedy was declined (predating the author blankage), so it's here now. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google results are clear that there is an island off the coast of Nova Scotia officially called "Gerard Island" but also variously spelled "Gerrard Island", "Gerard's Island" and "Gerrard's Island". However we don't seem to have any content about it under any spelling I can see, but d:Q22637307 exists. See e.g. [7]. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The island in question is alleged to be off the coast of Hong Kong. The Nova Scotia island I found as well, but it would be a separate subject matter, as the two shouldn't be related islands at all (given the insertion at the redirect and disambig page). Because we don't have Nova Scotia Gerard Island content currently, it feels like this should stay deleted until we do. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic women's national cricket team

This redirect was first pointed at an article that seems to have never existed (accidentally), before being pointed at a women's national cricket template where the Czech team is not mentioned, before being pointed at the Czech cricket page where the women's national team is not mentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McNamara

I doubt the family is really the primary topic for this surname, given the numerous other people who share it. Would prefer a disambiguation page. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no reason to delete here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear what you are asking for. "McNamara" is not ambiguous: it's a variant of MacNamara, and that article explains the origin of the surname, and provides a link to List of people with surname MacNamara which includes a list of people with surname McNamara. What more do you want? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, do any of the people at List of people with surname MacNamara go by just "MacNamara"? Utopes (talk / cont) 20:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list of people is linked at the current target, so I don't see any reason to disambiguate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not the primary topic? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would there be to disambiguate though? It wouldn't make sense to duplicate the preexisting list. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List both the surname page and the page about the family. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ONEOTHER. In the absence of an individual who would be the primary topic, I think the surname is the primary topic here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of ONEOTHER but do not think it applies here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current target already has a hatnote - creating a disambiguation page would get in some people's way while helping nobody. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's standard for a surname that's notable enough to have its own article without "(surname)", and since McNamara is just a variation of MacNamara, they are together a single notable surname, making the article the primary topic for both of them. RedPanda25 16:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now (Taylor's Version

Unnatural disambiguation as outlined in WP:RDAB, and specifically an implausible search term as such. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boujee

While the current target (bourgeoisie) is the word that Boujee is derived from, searching the term with this specific spelling seems to be specifically in reference to the song Bad and Boujee, as this is the source that "Boujee" is most often associated with, and what gave it notability as a word with this spelling in the first place. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I went ahead and added an anchor to Boujee at the Gen Z slang article). Utopes (talk / cont) 20:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Instagram

This app is not, actually, the Chinese Instagram. While this name was unilaterally added to the lead with sources comparing it to Instagram, I feel that people searching for this term may be looking for topics such as Internet censorship in China, or List of websites blocked in mainland China. Or Instagram#China, for that matter, which may be the most succinct target of these options. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the best option is to redirect it to Xiaohongshu, but add '"Chinese Instagram" redirects here. For Instagram censorship in China, see Instagram#China". I think anyone searching for the specific phrase 'Chinese Instagram' is definitely searching for Xiaohongshu. Cereally8 (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cereally8, which is why I had added the redirect, as well as the sources supporting the name, because whenever I hear people talking about it on Twitter it's always by the name "Chinese Instagram", and I thought this would be helpful to people searching. It is, of course, especially helpful if they are then told that it's not actually a version of Instagram, as I thought the page itself made clear, but a specific template would certainly help. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cereally8's solution. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per Cerally8. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per Cerally8. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Echavarri

Seems to be an actress who was brought on as a voice artist for the upcoming sequel. Looking at her iMDB page shows many different previous roles. There may or may not be enough SIGCOV for her to have her own Wikipedia article, but putting this aside for now, it really does not make sense to keep her as a redirect especially when she is not mentioned anywhere at the target page. And even if she was mentioned, a red-link seems much more suitable in order to encourage article creation, because this is not her first acting role, and will likely not be her last either. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arion Kurtaj

From external searches, this appears to be the name of the suspected GTA leaker. However, this name lacks context at the target article as it seems to be intentionally never mentioned; only the claimed alias is referred to within the associated section. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Lucia

This redirect does nothing but say that there is a character named Jason, and a character named Lucia, who were leaked to possibly be in the Untitled Grand Theft Auto sequel. As we're dealing with leaked information for media that has not been released, everything appears to be subject to change, and this title seems excessively broad given the circumstances. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too little substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common enough names to possibly interfere with search for no currently relevant gain. Same information will be produced by search. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_6&oldid=1179816403"