Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎CCP virus: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)
Line 331: Line 331:


====CCP virus====
====CCP virus====
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">
<includeonly>[[File:White check mark in dark green rounded square.svg|16px|link=|alt=Keep]] '''Closed discussion''', see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#1645360656|full discussion]]. Result was: </includeonly><noinclude><span id="1645360656"></span>
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:The result of the discussion was </noinclude>'''keep'''<includeonly></div></includeonly><noinclude><!-- Template:Rfd top-->. The present target has well-sourced content about the misinformation, and is the primary usage of the redirect's term. Where as the proposed targets did not have sourced content regarding the redirect's term. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span> [[User talk:Jay|(''talk'')]] 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
*<span id="CCP virus">{{no redirect|1 = CCP virus }}</span> → [[:COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin]] <span>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks lx">([[Talk:CCP virus|talk]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[Special:WhatLinksHere/CCP virus|links]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[Special:PageHistory/CCP virus|history]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[:toolforge:pageviews/?start=2022-01-12&end=2022-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=CCP_virus|stats]])</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small class="plainlinks"><nowiki>[</nowiki>&nbsp;Closure:&nbsp;''{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]<span class="sysop-show">/[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]</span>}}''&nbsp;]</small>
*<span id="CCP virus">{{no redirect|1 = CCP virus }}</span> → [[:COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin]] <span>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks lx">([[Talk:CCP virus|talk]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[Special:WhatLinksHere/CCP virus|links]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[Special:PageHistory/CCP virus|history]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[:toolforge:pageviews/?start=2022-01-12&end=2022-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=CCP_virus|stats]])</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small class="plainlinks"><nowiki>[</nowiki>&nbsp;Closure:&nbsp;''{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]<span class="sysop-show">/[{{fullurl:CCP virus|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#CCP virus]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]</span>}}''&nbsp;]</small>
Line 361: Line 366:
::::The US situation is not comparable because the US federal government is controlled to a far lesser extent by the Republican Party than the Chinese government is controlled by the Communist Party. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist (talk)]] 03:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
::::The US situation is not comparable because the US federal government is controlled to a far lesser extent by the Republican Party than the Chinese government is controlled by the Communist Party. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist (talk)]] 03:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is''', per Felix An. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is''', per Felix An. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.''</noinclude><!-- Template:Rfd bottom --></div>


====Ferrari Japan====
====Ferrari Japan====

Revision as of 12:37, 20 February 2022

February 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2022.

Fannia scalaris: Ento 431

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 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from Wikipedia:School and university projects/ENTO 431, but the tag is not needed for a mainspace version of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Serves no purpose now that the page has been moved to its proper title, and Ento 431 means nothing outside of that specific class in 2009; no incoming links. eviolite (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hackney North Star

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Hackney North Star

Caymanian

I'd like to review the target of this redirect, which might equally be Cayman Islands. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Hong Kong & Monarchy of Gibraltar

The pages "Monarchy of Hong Kong" and "Monarchy of Gibraltar", which can redirect to the article "Monarchy of the United Kingdom", should be deleted, here are the reasons:

There isn't any Hong Kong local monarch, but the Chinese monarchs from Qin to Qing (ruled Panyu County and Bao'an County, at that time included Hong Kong), the British monarchs from Victoria to Elizabeth II (ruled British Hong Kong from 1841 to 1941 and from 1945 to 1997), Manuel I of Portugal (ruled Tamão from 1514 to 1521) and Emperor Shōwa (ruled Japanese occupied Hong Kong from 1941 to 1945) ruled Hong Kong during different periods respectively, thus the term "monarchy of Hong Kong" is original research, and the thing that refer the monarchy of Hong Kong to the British monarchy is confusing and makes no sense.

There isn't any Gibraltarian local monarch, but Gibraltar was firstly under Phoenician, ancient Carthaginian and ancient Roman rule, then under Visigothic rule from 409 to 711, under Moorish rule from 711 to 1309 and from 1333 to 1462, under Castilian and Spanish rule from 1309 to 1333 and from 1462 to 1704, and under British rule from 1704, thus the term "monarchy of Gibraltar" is original research, and the thing that refer the monarchy of Gibraltar to the British monarchy is confusing and makes no sense.--Joker Twins (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a weak consensus to delete the first redirect, and consensus to retarget the second but is History of Gibraltar or Kingdom of Gibraltar the better target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first one, there're considerable amount of reference to the Queen in Hong Kong across all aspects of social life during the British Hong Kong era. C933103 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that it's ambiguous – the British monarchy is not the only monarchy that has governed Hong Kong, as it was previously governed by the Chinese imperial monarchy. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of "Hong Kong" did not exists before the creation of the British colony. There were aboriginal settlements and residents, but the place they live in weren't referred to as "Hong Kong" back then. The place was also only merely part of much larger administrative units of Bao'an or Xin'an, instead of being viewed as an individual entity. Hence Chinese emperors who controlled the area before British colonization process are virtually impossible to refer to themselves or being referred by others as being an emperor of a place known as Hong Kong, both due to the name and due to the lack of significance of Hong Kong before British possession. The Japanese Empire also ruled Hong Kong during the WWII, however Japanese Empire was unitary, see every possession they control as part of the Great Japan Empire, and their emperor wouldn't be seen as monarch of any other individual geographical unit independently. Hence the notion of Chinese emperor and Japanese emperor potentially being treated as "Monarch of Hong Kong" in the history is unrealistic. C933103 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monarchy of Hong Kong per C933103: The concept of "Hong Kong" did not exists before the creation of the British colony. Hong Kong was established as a separate entity via the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. feminist (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factor IV

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 Coagulation#List of coagulation factors. Jay (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither term appears in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Coagulation#List of coagulation factors where it is mentioned, and which links to other extant articles like Factor V, Factor VII etc. eviolite (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that retargeting, and thanks for pointing that out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Deputy editor

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Deputy editor

Kevin Sellers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Kevin Sellers

Pink Friday 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Pink Friday 2

0rz

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#0rz

伦敦

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no special affinity between London and Chinese. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1977 Republic of the Congo coup d'état attempt

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this one separately from the other coup attempt redirects, as the target does mention that Yhombi-Opango took power in 1977 following the assassination of his predecessor, Marien Ngouabi. However, neither article calls this a coup attempt. Searching on GScholar, I can't find evidence that this was considered a coup. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

William Jackson (cricketer)

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 Restore. Take to Articles for deletion if notability is debatable. Jay (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Twice WP:BLARed by Dissident93 despite passing WP:SNG WP:NCRIC. Linked in List of English cricketers (1841–1850), List of Nottingham Cricket Club players and List of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club players. Restore article and take to AFD if anyone wants to argue notability, the current redirect is worse than useless. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article AfD is the only appropriate venue when someone objects to a deletion-by-redirection. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore per WP:BLAR and trout Dissident93 for redirecting to a disambiguation page with no relevant entry. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per the above to correct inappropriate BLAR, send to AfD if desired. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Restore the article. If there's a dispute it should go to AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misisng coup d'état attempts

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of coups in these years at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b. that the April 2013 Libya attempt is not to be confused with 2013 Libyan coup d'état attempt, which occurred in October and makes no mention of April. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Moqua well

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 retarget. All retargeted to Moqua Well by nominator after their improper close as keep. (non-admin closure) Mdewman6 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not mentioned in the target. Heanor (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Moqua Well. These are all misspellings/alternate names. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Earth flag

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. Current target is improper, and there are no other plausible targets. Jay (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the term 'earth' is not mentioned in the target. Heanor (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only plausible target, Flag of Earth, was deleted by AfD in November 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LaundryPizza03. There have been many flags proposed to represent Earth (which I presume is what the AfDed article was about), but the UN flag article does not appear to have been. (There is also apparently something called the "Earth Flag", though it is likely unnotable: [3].) eviolite (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not because the flag can represent the earth, but because it is the most well known flag that feature the earth as a design element. C933103 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Heanor and LaundryPizza03. The current target is a flag representing a body of nations, so it is more political than geographical, and more globe flag than earth flag. Havradim leaf a message 04:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Medaillon

This delete request is to help avoid perpetuating ongoing confusion between two very similar English words with very different meanings. For background, a medal is a small coin-like object without monetary value. A medallion has two very distinct meanings: 1. a large medal, often suspended by a chain or ribbon, and 2. a very large wall ornament used on buildings and monuments. To make things confusing, most awards are presented in the form of the first meaning of medallion, but are usually called "medals" (Think gold medal in the Olympics.) The second meaning of medallion can be found at Medallion (architecture).

This request involves a redirect that is often mistaken for "medallion", but is, in fact, a separate English word with a very different meaning. The similarity in spelling causes frequent confusion. A medaillon (spelt aill versus alli) is a small round cut of meat. I attempted to create a mini stub article out of the redirect but was quickly reverted for two reasons: 1. I had forgotten to review pages linked to the redirect. My bad, I was trying to rush it through and simply forgot. I have since corrected those links to either the large medal or the wall ornament meanings, as appropriate. The remaining links are disambigs to my former stub article. 2. The reverter cited Wikipedia:NOTDIC, which I actually agree with.

This all being said, our choices can be to: A) Keep the redirect, which is pointing to the wrong meaning of the word. B) Point the redirect to a better article. That would be preferred, but I have been unable to find such an article. That is exactly what prompted me to draft the mini-stub in the first place. C) Go back to my mini-stub, in defiance of Wikipedia:NOTDIC, or D) Delete the redirect entirely.

I feel strongly that it would be better to have no redirect at all than to have a redirect to the wrong meaning of the word. This is not an alternative spelling, it is a different word with a different meaning. It is not a misspelling, it is the correct spelling for a different word. It is not an incorrect name, it is a correct name for a subject that we find not notable. Since we don't have the usual option of B, because there is no better article to redirect to, and we don't want to do C for lack of standing, and since A is incorrect, we are left with option D, to delete the redirect.

If a butcher or chef can find a mention of a medaillon in an existing article, I'm open to turning this into a section redirect. Can anyone come up with a fifth alternative? Sincerely, PoundTales (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Wiktionary, "medaillon" is an alternative form of specifically the cooking meaning of "medallion". As such if a new article were to be created, it should probably be at a title such as Medallion (cooking). Otherwise, I think the best option is either {{Wiktionary redirect}} or keep as plausible typo. eviolite (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect as redirect from common misspelling / alternative name. We have 4 incoming links, all meaning to go to medal/medallion, showing that this is a common misspelling. There are books like this showing that the use of it in art is not uncommon (mainly because it is the standard term in French, which was a major language for art literature for a long period). Things like a "medaillon painting" are uncommon but used terms[4][5], and see also e.g. this or this. All in all, it seems to me to be a logical redirect. Fram (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fram. The assertion that "medaillon" refers to the meat doesn't seem to be founded. Perhaps it's called that in French, but in English the evidence suggests it's simply spelled "medallions". e.g. [6][7][8] - that being the case, it seems best to simply keep it as a redirect from a misspelling of medallion  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take a step back here. This seems to have the potential of becoming a "hot" issue, and I'm not sure why. Rapid reverts without discussion does tend to make things hot, and I've seen a few of them, already, on this issue. Let's all take this slowly and civilly and keep to the facts. First of all, the 4 incoming links comment: This is true. But two of these four links are from this discussion, and one of them is from a User page. The only incoming link presently of concern is from Medallion (architecture), where it is used in a {{distinguish}} hatnote. None of the incoming links support an argument one way or the other. Secondly, the not well founded comment: I think this reference, which I'll cite as "MWCD", can establish the usage:

Mish, Frederick C., ed. (2003). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-808-7.

Also, I had submitted an uncontroversial technical move request for the page Medallion (disambiguation) to Medallion per standard naming conventions. The move was made and then undone without discussion. I'm not quite sure that was the proper procedure, but it is clear we need to bring this move into the discussion now.

I do believe that MWCD is a well-established Wikipedia:Reliable source. Wiktionary and Wikipedia articles are not, because that is a case of circular logic. An error on one page can not be used to justify an error on another page. Google search results are also not a reliable source. There is plenty of bad information on the Internet, and the mere presence of bad information does not make it correct. That being said, MWCD tells us that Medallion (alli) has three distinct meanings:

  1. a large form of medal (MWCD does not specifically add "suspended from a ribbon or chain", but this is a common usage)
  2. a wall ornament (MWCD uses slightly more general terms terms here, indicating possible multiple meanings in Wikipedia terms, e.g. "portrait medallion")
  3. a round cut of meat (MWCD does not specifically say "boneless", though I've seen it in some other definitions, e.g. Medallion (disambiguation))

MWCD also informs us that in the 3rd sense, and only in that sense, there is a variant spelling "medaillon" (aill). This spelling applies exclusively to the cut of meat, and not to the large medal or the wall ornament.

That being established, I believe the proper way to model this in Wikipedia is as follows:

  1. Medallion (alli) should go to a disambiguation page. This is why I submitted the uncontroversial technical move request, and why it was granted. The large medal meaning is not the exclusive or primary meaning of the word. Furthermore, there is an additional redirect, Medalion, a misspelling, that currently points to the large medal. Due to double redirects, it cannot presently point to the correct spelling, Medallion. I had intended to redirect both Medallion and Medalion to Medallion (disambiguation), but while doing so, I discovered that it is not the correct naming convention. So to follow the correct naming convention, I submitted the uncontroversial technical move request that was implemented and then undone. I believe that the move is well supported, and that the misspelling Medalion should point to the disambiguation, not to just one of the three meanings.
  2. Medaillon (aill) should either go to an article on the cut of meat or be deleted. If someone can find a proper article where we can use a section redirect, I would support that and I am actually encouraging people to find that article, as my own search came up short. An alternative would be to create an article, Medallion (meat cut), and have aill redirect there. I attempted to create such an article and had it reverted for Wikipedia:NOTDIC, which I actually agree with. If we don't have the basis for an article, then we're left with creating a redirect to a redlink. Such a redirect would qualify for a G8 speedy delete. This is exactly why I opened this discussion in the first place. Aill is not a misspelling, nor is it an alternative for all three meanings of alli. It an an alternative only for the cut of meat meaning. Currently, Wikipedia is telling users that aill is an alternative only for the large medal meaning, which is incorrect per MWCD.

As I write this, I believe I may have come up with possible compromise for aill, but it depends on the alli move that was implemented and then undone: Redirect aill to alli, which would now be a dismbig page. On the disambig page, we have the redlink Medallion (meat cut) followed by "also spelled medaillon" to indicate that the spelling applies only to the one usage.

As for the name of the redlink, I've seen Medallion (cooking) proposed and Medallion (food) has been used on the disambig page. A medallion is neither a cooking technique nor a kind of food. Perhaps "meat cut" is not the best possible term, and I'm not wedded to it, but it should not be overly generalized to the point that it takes on an incorrect meaning. Perhaps I should renew my call for a butcher or chef to help expand on this third meaning of medallion and perhaps direct us to a better place to land this redlink/redirect. I do think, however, that we've clearly established that this word is not the exclusive domain of numismatists and architects, alone.

Before we close this discussion out, I do believe we need to come to agreement on the language of the disambig page, lest we wind up in an editwar there, as well.

In that regard, if I may, I'd like to quickly delve into a little etymology. Per MWCD, the word "medal" entered the English language circa 1578. The word "medallion" is a case where the French word "médaillon" has been introduced into English not once, but three separate times, each with a different meaning. (Multiple introductions of a foreign word is a very common occurrence in language evolution.) The earliest date MWCD gives is 1658. (Unfortunately the dates appear only in the print version of MWCD, not the online version.) The French spelling has been completely anglicized for the first two senses, but the French spelling remains as a valid alternate for the third. Currently, the page Medallion (disambiguation) claims that Medal is a shortening of medallion. That is incorrect. Medal came to the English language nearly a century before medallion. Medal#Etymology is correct on that point and uses the same dates without citation. (I assume we both used the same source, MWCD, to establish those dates.)

In general, the article Medal is pretty balanced and well written. It could use a little expansion here and there, but for the most part I have no issue with it. What I do have issue with is the mishandling of the terms medallion and medaillon. "Medal" is not the only or primary meaning of those terms. That is the main issue of concern. Let's not get into a game of rapid reverts and circular logic. Let's take our time and figure this out civilly. Thank you. PoundTales (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled Medallion to the discussion. The nom had tagged it for RfD, but not added here. Jay (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to confirm my previous "keep" per my previous reasons, and to indicate that at the time of my comment, there were 4 mainspace (i.e. article text) links to Medaillon, all of the for art or architecture. Someone who saw my comment or the RfD probably corrected these, meaning that no such links are currently present (and I don't think there is an easy way to find out which links existed in the past), but that doesn't change anything (when someone cleans up a common misspelling, it dosen't suddenly cease being a common misspelling of course). I don't think something needs to change about the whole situation as it existed before this started, and I don't think (at last wrt medaillon) that anyting heated or untowards happened. Much ado about nothing. Fram (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the incoming links, yes, there were two that were intended for the medal sense, and two for the architecture sense. Under the current structure, they were all redirected to the medal sense. This, in fact, illustrates the problem, which I'm trying to resolve. Also, to be clear, I'm not saying anything "wrong" happened. I assume we're all acting in good faith, but none of us, as far as I know, are admins and we might not all know the proper procedure to follow. I know I'm trying to do the best I can, and I'm learning along the way. I agree, on the whole, that this is "much ado about nothing." That is why I submitted the Medallion move as an "Uncontroversial technical request". It is only because that move was undone that brought it into this discussion.
I realize that my current proposal has evolved a bit, and may be a bit confusing. Of course, the point of discussion is to uncover mistakes or misunderstood nuances and that a solution will evolve in the course of the discussion. My original proposal, to delete Medaillon (aill), was only made when three other possible solutions proved impossible, and I found myself left with deletion as the remaining option. I still believe that "B) Point the redirect to a better article." is the better solution, but as of yet, no one has proposed a better target. In a good faith effort to solicit more input on that solution, I took the initiative to engage WikiProject Food and drink but have yet to get a response. I am still hopeful that someone may still provide some additional insight that may yet be helpful.
To be clear, not to repeat myself, but to try to be more precise about it, my current proposal is:
  1. Move Medallion (disambiguation) to Medallion - This was submitted as an Uncontroversial technical request, noting that the move was blocked by a redirect (Medallion) with a non-trivial history. The move was made and then undone as an "undiscussed move; not uncontroversial". I still don't see what the controversy is, but that's why I've added it to this discussion. A solution to the other aspects of this discussion hinge on this move. I am realizing now that perhaps, technically speaking, this part of the solution should have been brought to Wikipedia:Requested moves. It does, however, seem to me that closely related changes should be discussed in one discussion.
  2. Now that Medallion is a disambig page, redirect Medaillon (aill) and the misspelling "Medalion" to Medallion (alli). In fact, what I originally intended to do was to redirect Medallion, Medaillon and Medalion to Medallion (disambiguation). In the process, I discovered that the standard naming convention was to have the actual disambig text at Medallion and to have Medallion (disambiguation) be a redirect to it. Since this is a standard naming convention, I don't see what the "controversy" is about it. I would be happy with the alternative I started with, but then I suspect I'll be told that it's "non-standard", and have it reverted on that basis. That's why we're having a discussion.
  3. We need to come to agreement on the text of the disambig page. I tried to correct a factual problem, and had it reverted, so rather than editwar over it, I've brought that to this discussion as well. Perhaps, technically speaking, that should be a third discussion on a third page, (possibly Talk:Medallion (disambiguation)) but as I said, it seems to make more sense to have one discussion including all related issues, where the effects and side effects can be considered as a whole.
Why does this matter? What's the big deal? The problem is that Medallion does not have one or two meanings alone, it has three (and possibly four), and no one meaning is overwhelmingly dominant. In a case like this, the redirects should be landing on a disambig page, to allow the user to select the meaning they intended. Personally, the question of where the disambig page is (Medallion (disambiguation) or Medallion) is not a big deal, but I understand there is a standard on this point, so I propose we follow it. What's the "controversy" about that??
Why don't we leave things alone? Because the redirects are landing on one of the three meanings, even in a case when it is clear that this is the wrong meaning of the particular word. The current scheme gives the appearance that we are denying the existence of other uses of the word. I did not realize that the pages Medallion (architecture) and Medallion (disambiguation) even existed, at first. My solution would make them much more prominent and easier to find. Someone who assumes that their meaning of "medallion" is the only one will be taken to a disambig page that will kindly inform them otherwise and ask them which meaning did they intend? Is that not the point of disambig pages?
I honestly believe I have a workable solution that can meet the concerns of all parties. I am willing to consider other viewpoints and other solutions. We have documented that all three (or four) senses of medallion exist. I have demonstrated that the existing structure redirects everything to only one meaning of the word and away from the diambig page instead of towards it. I feel that following established standards is reasonable and ought not be controversial in any way. I remain willing to listen to valid concerns and to modify my proposal if better solutions are found.
P.S.: To try to keep this discussion focused on the main issue, and not get lost in yet another distraction, I have, until now, refrained on getting too involved with a possible fourth meaning of medallion, which was alluded to in the original arguments to keep. This is a bit beyond my personal expertise, but it does appear that "portrait medallions" are a distinct class and a fourth usage of the word. While the medal and architecture senses refer to a three-dimensional object in relief, portrait medallions are two-dimensional objects with a portrait painted on metal, and were typically oval in shape and hand-sized. (MWCD alludes to this meaning under sense 2 with the words "a portrait". It is not unusual that the structure of Wikipedia requires us to be more precise in our article subject matter definitions or scope than a dictionary would be. Architecture and Painting are two distinct fields and tend to call for separate articles with differing incoming links.) This fourth meaning can simply be added to the disambig page without controversy once these other issues are resolved. I mention it now because I alluded to a fourth meaning, and thought I should clarify that comment. PoundTales (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, so your "First of all, the 4 incoming links comment: This is true. But two of these four links are from this discussion, and one of them is from a User page. The only incoming link presently of concern is from Medallion (architecture), where it is used in a hatnote. None of the incoming links support an argument one way or the other." comment was just fake, as you knew all along that there were originally four uses of "medaillon" in articles but pretended for the sake of your (extremely long-winded) argument that they were links from this discussion and user space instead? Bye, I have no interest in discussing things with people who use such underhanded tactics. Fram (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now currently seven pages that link to Medaillon. One of them is from Medallion (architecture), another one is from your user talk page, and five of them are from the Wikipedia namespace. The five Wikipedia namespace links are from WP:RFD, the "Numismatics" WikiProject, the WikiProject's "Article alerts" subpage, the "Untagged stubs" database report, and the 2022 February 11 daily RfD log page. Also, the four articles previously linking to Medaillon were already corrected before this RfD had been started. Those were Uşak, The Procuress (Vermeer), Joseph Echteler, and Thornton–Smith Building. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no attempt to be "underhanded". If you look at the very beginning of this discussion, you'll see that I've been completely forward with my actions: "I attempted to create a mini stub article out of the redirect but was quickly reverted for two reasons: 1. I had forgotten to review pages linked to the redirect. My bad, I was trying to rush it through and simply forgot. I have since corrected those links to either the large medal or the wall ornament meanings, as appropriate. The remaining links are disambigs to my former stub article." The corrections were made after the initial revert, and before opening this discussion. GeoffreyT2000 has correctly identified those links, thank you. I had not taken note of what those links were, unfortunately, and forgotten what they were, exactly, when I opened the discussion. Each of those articles show my edits on 10 Feb. This discussion was opened on the 11th. I was attempting to resolve the reverter's legitimate concerns. The number of incoming links change constantly. This is a wiki. I'm sorry I was not more explicit about that, but I'm trying to keep my comments as concise as possible, as this discussion has indeed become "extremely long-winded". Unfortunately, we seem to be focusing on who did what when rather than the actual issue at hand and seeking understanding and resolution of the issue.
As an aside, The Procuress (Vermeer) is about a painting where it is stated that the rug "shows medallions and leaves" . Uşak contains a reference to the same painting with the same comment. Try as I might, I simply cannot find the alleged "medallions" in the pattern of the rug. I see leaves and leaf-like design features, only. At any rate, I did not see cuts of meat or architectural elements, so I simply let it go to the "medallion" redirect. It probably should go to the disambig, which actually supports my proposed changes. PoundTales (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's germane to this Rfd, but I linked from Smiling Girl, a Courtesan, Holding an Obscene Image to medallion (alli) before realising it was a redirect. I'm not even sure the word usage in the article is correct now, since presumably the item the sitter is holding up isn't made of metal at all. Advise would be welcomed. Arlo James Barnes 18:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an example of the "fourth meaning" of medallion, the "portrait medallion" that I was referring to. This is a case supporting my proposal that "medallion" should be the disambig page, and not a redirect to Medal, as per our standard naming conventions. Again, I simply don't see why complying with our standards is "controversial", and I've heard no arguments against that request. Any advice on how we can get this discussion back on track would be most welcomed. PoundTales (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPad Air (5th generation)

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. Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the best target. The iPad Air 5 has not been released yet and is still the subject of speculation, so there is no article on it yet. The iPad Air is an article only on the first model, while the article iPad seems too general. What is the best target here? (FWIW, the ideal is to rewrite iPad Air to be about the entire series instead of just the first one, but that is outside the scope of RfD) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: As far as I know, the 5th generation of iPad Air is scheduled to be released in March 2022. So, I made the redirect page. --Hajoon0102 💬 07:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think your idea is good! I agree your idea. --Hajoon0102 💬 00:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until enough is known for an article on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There're some rumors about the 5th generation of iPad Air. --Hajoon0102 💬 11:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is still no mention at List of iOS and iPadOS devices#iPad Air.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. There are rumours about new Apple devices every ten minutes, there only appear to be leaks and no official press release or similar from Apple. I'd wait until this is the case then make way for a new article. --Bonoahx (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the official announcement per above. The precedent from the 3rd and 4th generations has been to create the article after the product is announced (in the case of 4th gen, it was in draftspace for a week before the announcement.) Not convinced by "some rumors". eviolite (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chemical Bond Approach

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Chemical Bond Approach

AdSeg

AdSeg (administrative segregation) is not necessarily solitary. AdSeg blocks often contain two-person cells. It's not the happy place to be sure but it isn't supermax solitary either. Doesn't appear to be mentioned at target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No not necessarily, but for all intents and purposes that is what the term refers to. The very first reference used by the article is "Profile of Offenders in Administrative Segregation: A Review of the Literature". -- œ™ 07:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, since pretty much by definition any prisoner in solitary is in AdSeg, but not all prisoners in AdSeg are in solitary. My issue here is that I think this redirect might discourage development of a proper article on AdSeg by implying we've already covered it in the article in solitary confinement, which is not the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antinational

As is, this redirect makes no sense - but, there may be a reasonable target for it, something about opposition to nationalism perhaps? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Nationalism as "R from acronym antonym". --Lenticel (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    National and nationalism are different, though not with the wording, but with the meaning. So "R from antonym" if done should be redirected to the article Nation instead. Crashed greek (talk)
    I considered that too but it seems to be a loaded "enemy" word for nationalist factions not unlike "unpatriotic" according to my search. --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You both mean "antonym", right? This is not an acronym. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, striking that part of my comment. --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current target is the closest thing to the meaning of the word, antinational roughly means traitor. Crashed greek (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The word has two meanings - first, to be opposed to the concept of nations, and second to be opposed to your own nation. Neither of these definitions have any resemblance to being a traitor. Being opposed to your nation and being a traitor are two radically different things. And, of course, in India, its usage has nothing to do with being anti-India, but instead being opposed to a particular type of Indian politics. So, no, it doesn't mean treason, not even close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed to your own nation is the same as treason. Crashed greek (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. Treason is an action, not mere opinion. The only thing that is unquestionably treason is violent action against your own country for the benefit of an enemy. And whether being a revolutionary (being opposed to your nation's government but not your nation) counts as treason is highly disputed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Antinational is about action too. Crashed greek (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the word "antinational" limited to only applicable to one's own nation? C933103 (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary redirect, a word that cannot be reduced to treason or opposition to nationalism, not least because its usage is different in Indian English than other varieties. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary redirect, per Rosguill. Also, because I agree with Oiyarbepsy's comment on 07:35, 28 January UTC. Also redirect Anti-national accordingly. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added Anti-national, which FWIW is a Neelix redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both There is no clear definition of these terms, I don't see how the reader is aided by these redirects. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between Anti-national (India), Anti-nationalism (which redirects to Nationalism#Criticism), and maybe also Treason or other topics. Deletion and redirecting to Wiktionary are no good because of the existence of the Anti-national (India) article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Mx. Granger. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do the Keep and Retarget voters feel about the drafted disambiguation that has no primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep drafted disambiguation. It still links to Wiktionary, and I agree that it is quite possible that readers are looking for Anti-national (India). eviolite (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aleph

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Template:Aleph

🔴

Seems a little weird to me that we're assuming that people who specifically write in 🔴 want to go "Circle"—seems much more likely that if they're gonna take the time to copy and paste the unicode emoji, they'd want to be navigated to The Color Red. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you cannot see this emoji, it is a large red circle the same size as other emojis. On some platforms, it has a glossy specularity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice. This character is U+1F534 "LARGE RED CIRCLE", the similar characters 🟠 🟡 🟢 🟣 🟤 🔵 🔶 🔷 🔸 🔹 🔺 🔻 🟥 🟦 🟧 🟨 🟩 🟪 🟫 all redirect to Circle, Rhombus, Triangle or Square as appropriate to their shape and this one should not be singled out from the set. All individual unicode code points that have a defined meaning are plausible search terms and should lead to somewhere. In this case I don't see any reason why that somewhere should not be the article about the shape, but if others prefer the colour or some other target then the set should be discussed as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - no opinion on Circle vs e.g. Red, but changing it to the color would require a discussion involving all of the other ones pointed out above. Although the song in question apparently has been illustrated as a red dot on some versions of the CD, it doesn't look like there's an official name, and the album predates emoji's inclusion in Unicode anyway (so the dot isn't specifically the emoji.) eviolite (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Circle. feminist (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AW

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Wikipedia:AW

CCP virus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The present target has well-sourced content about the misinformation, and is the primary usage of the redirect's term. Where as the proposed targets did not have sourced content regarding the redirect's term. Jay (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to online and offline usage I have observe, the term "CCP virus", and other similar terms, are not as a conspiracy theory, but rather an accusation of CCP's negligence and cover up and miscommunication that have resulted in failure at containment of the virus, with the origin possibly also come from CCP-related facilities, hence . Thus, I think it is inappropriate to point these redirects towards the current target of coronavirus conspiracy theory, and elaborate the term inside the section of Wuhan lab bioweapon theory, instead to redirecting and explaining it in more relevant dedicated article like Chinese government response to COVID-19, or COVID-19 lab leak theory, or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
C933103 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose retargeting. We have well-sourced content that covers the 'CCP virus" phrase at COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin. So far, we do not have any demonstration that there is sourced, due content that belongs at either of the proposed targets. As noted at the misinformation article, 'CCP virus' was heavily promoted by Epoch Times and associated with conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus. Using Google News, I get 18,200 hits for 'ccp virus', of which 11,200 match ["ccp virus" "epoch times"]. Firefangledfeathers 04:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get 664,000 hits for "CCP virus", and only 179,000 when "Epoch Times" is also added into part of keywords. Note that I am not talking about news agency usages since they, except Epoch Times, will tend to use more formal terms. But Wikipedia redirects aren't limited to only formal terms, and is intended to facilitate people reaching the article they want to read. C933103 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I continue to support keeping the redirects as they are, but I'd also be fine with COVID-19 naming as a second choice. Firefangledfeathers 14:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the proposed retarget? Would help to focus discussion if there is a concrete proposal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Arguments of the first discussion are still just as valid today. The only interesting thing to say about the CCP virus expression and its variants is why and how someone would try to call the virus after the CCP, which is aptly covered at COVID-19 misinformation. People looking up this expression are probably not looking for information about the actual virus, or the actual Chinese government response to it. Place Clichy (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That why and how someone would call the virus after CCP, is as I mentioned in my opening text of this discussion, not really having to do with misinformation. C933103 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not have to do with information either. You can reasonably consider attributing to the CCP the mismanagement of the epidemics, including the initial outbreak, but not the virus itself, in the present consensus of reliable sources. If you do, that's not information, that's misinformation. Place Clichy (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be said that those mismanagement led to the virus becoming endemic among humanity. So even in cases they did not create the virus themselves, from the perspective of a human, it is still them introducing the virus into the population, and thus there are a number of people out there feeling it is appropriate to use the name to refer to the virus, at least in non-official conversation. C933103 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to to the COVID-19 naming. I will expand it with all formal and informal names. CutePeach (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How so? I do not think that the SARS-COV2 virus was ever seriously called the CCP virus by anybody. Place Clichy (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pushed a lot by Epoch Times and I actually find it annoying. Even though the CCP are responsible for covering up the outbreak, and are still pushing back on the ITPPPR - the name calling really doesn't help. I added it to the article with some sources. CutePeach (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current targeting as primary usage. Second preference would be a disambig page (as much as I'd hate to have another target page to watch), as the current redirect includes links to multiple locations. We may also consider expanding the existing disambig page for Chinese virus, as the terms seem to be used roughly interchangeably. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US situation is not comparable because the US federal government is controlled to a far lesser extent by the Republican Party than the Chinese government is controlled by the Communist Party. feminist (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ferrari Japan

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These divisions of Ferrari are not mentioned at the target or anywhere (that I could find) and were created as redirects so I think delete. There is also the similar Ferrari India but that has substantial edit history as a former article so I have not included it in this listing. A7V2 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_11&oldid=1072985941"