Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15

< April 14

April 16 >

April 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2024.

Drew Curtis' FARK.com

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. One example of caps it seems in the links. The redirect is whatever. Not worth discussing any longer though. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Drew Curtis' FARK.com → Fark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An implausible, unmentioned synonym for the subject. Very unlikely to be searched instead of Drew Curtis (from link) or Fark or Fark.com Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep exists enough on the Internet to be a useful redirect; current page title for fark is "Drew Curtis' FARK.com"; and, for example, the Telegraph used it: "When you go to the front page it's not just Fark.com, it's Drew Curtis's Fark.com.".[1] Even made it to print media [2] [3] [4]. Lack of mention is fine here since there's no possibility of confusion and readers will quickly learn they arrived at the correct place, from the lead of our article "Fark is a community website created by Drew Curtis ...." Skynxnex (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep based on the sources found by Skynxnex. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• That's just a sentence though, i.e. something belongs to someone else, not a redirect worthy alternate name. None of those sources uses capitals for "FARK.com" anyway. FARK.com doesn't exist. These don't change the fact that the term is convolutional, unlikely, and unofficial (as those sources haven't demonstrated it being a noteworthy name other than the start of a sentence for what we know: that Fark.com is a website owned by Drew Curtis). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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).

Dream Catching

• Dream Catching → Meek Mill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dark Deco

• Dark Deco → Art Deco#Late Art Deco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dark Mountain (logo)

• Dark Mountain (logo) → Paramount Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Redirects to Paramount Television Studios – retarget

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Actions Prior to Grant's Landing

• Actions Prior to Grant's Landing → Vicksburg campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague and unhelpful redirect, not to mention the improper title case- which landing? Meant to imply for the Vicksburg campaign, but other operations during the war commanded by Grant involved the landing of troops. Very old R from move from 2003, was only briefly at this title before moving to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before Vicksburg, which was moved again to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before the Siege of Vicksburg and finally Actions prior to Grant's landing before the siege of Vicksburg before being blanked and redirected in 2005, so can be safely deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning delete per nominator. "Grant's Landing" appears to primarily refer to Vicksburg campaign and a place in Oregon (and this redirect would be unlikely to be used for searching for anything related to the Oregon place). But - this doesn't seem to be a phrasing found anywhere in the major secondary literature that I can tell, so I don't think that it's useful to keep around. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Pronomian

• Pronomian → Antinomianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pronomianism → Antinomianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really know for a fact that pronomianism is the opposite of antinomianism, or do we merely assume so based on the fact that “pro-” is the opposite of “anti-”? Now, if I really wanted to rid Wikipedia of these redirects I can tell you that they were made by somebody who is the subject of an WP:Office action. But the Wikipedia:Office never publishes the reasons for its actions, and I hope that discussing it here might raise the attention of subject matter experts who know what pronomianism actually is. Bwrs (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe we should redirect to Christian views on the Old Covenant. Antinomianism is usually used to mean a particular deviation from the mainstream Christian view (though we do a bad job of defining it in the article), so I don’t think this is an antonym, just another niche view.— JFHutson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Although that might be the most appropriate redirection target, it does not define the term either. Nowhere does the string “pronomian” appear in either the current target or in the new proposed target. This is one of my pet peeves, when a word I do not know redirects to an article that does not define this word. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Baffle Of Chancellorsville

• Baffle Of Chancellorsville → Battle of Chancellorsville  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The unique substitution of "Baffle" for "Battle" along with the incorrect capitalization make this redirect highly unlikely to be of use. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Clean vocals

• Clean vocals → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean Vocals → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean vocal → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean vocalist → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7 § Clean vocals – retarget

No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that unclean vocals is a redirect to death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at Singing instead, they'd type singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Of note, an RfD for Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This thing is really begging for a WP:RA, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget ... somewhere. The term "clean vocals" is only relevant in the context of certain genres of music which use vocal techniques commonly called "unclean". Singing doesn't describe any of those techniques and is the wrong target; the word "clean" doesn't appear in the article at all. The problem is that this makes sense as an {{R from antonym}} to both screaming (music) and death growl, which are both different techniques, and both of those articles describe "clean vocals" in context. There's a former article in the redirect's history ([5]) which was prodded many years ago for having no sources at all. We shouldn't restore that, but maybe a short set index/disambiguation, to give the term context? Or else expanding the very bare section on those two vocal styles at Extended vocal technique#Distortion and then targeting there? As an antonym to unclean vocals and harsh vocals, which probably should get the same treatment as this redirect. I can find a few sources to draft something but I'm about to be in meetings for the foreseeable future (ugh). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'll note that R From Antonym is not a "categorize this kept redirect" rcat, but instead, a "populate this maintenance category" redirect. I don't know WHY, but it IS. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Independent MPs

• Template:Independent MPs → Template:Independent MPs in Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Template:Independent MPs in Canada used to be at this pagename until I moved it to clarify its scope and avoid potential confusion with other navboxes, e.g. Template:Independent MPs in the United Kingdom. Now that the Canadian navbox is transcluded directly through its new name, I suggest that the old name be deleted to avoid any future mix-ups, e.g. being added to a British MP's biography by mistake. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate make a template-space dab page (yes, those exist). It would show an error message when transcluded. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP editor who says to disambiguate (although the resulting disambiguation page could potentially get very long, couldn't it?) Bwrs (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, the only other relevant template is the UK one linked above. In most other countries with members of parliament, laws forbid anyone running or sitting in parliament without affiliation with a registered party, or independents sit so rarely that a template is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good point! I didn't notice the word “independent”; probably all the independent members of US Congress and independent sitting state legislators in the United States put together would fit in a single infobox, as they are so rare. All the more reason to disambiguate. Bwrs (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, US legislators are not "members of parliament". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - as noted above there are only two Independent MPs templates, Canada and United Kingdom. The redirect already has zero transclusions, deleting it is cleaner than a template dab - they exist but they're clunky. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Ace Deuce

• Ace Deuce → Ann Arbor, Michigan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7 § Ace Deuce – no consensus

Not mentioned alternative name. Basically any time it comes up on Wikipedia, is people (including residents) saying that they've never heard this alternative name. The sources raised have all been mediocre, and as this was never added post-discussion-conclusion, it does not seem to have any use and only adds confusion for those who search this term and end up at a city where its colloquial(?)/uncommon nickname is not mentioned. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Soft retarget to wikt:acey-deucey? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Would advise against that. Wiktionary redirects are good for likely dictionary terms. And redirecting Title A to a completely separate Title B across different projects, with several variations between each, is highly unideal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ace deuce craps wants four

delete, i guess. from some looking, i found gambling jargon and... nothing else worth a specific redirect. there's a rapper with this name and a one piece character named "masked deuce" whose leader is named ace, though, so do with that what you will cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Who wants the, who wants the hard four? Five want four
For the record, I don't terribly oppose deletion. There's really not very many good places to redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Technofascism and Techno-fascism

• Technofascism → Internet censorship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Techno-fascism → Techno-populism#Technocratic populism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same terminology, different meanings. Does its meaning depend on the absence/presence of the hyphen, or can it have both meanings either way? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• My thought exactly. Either it is a term legitimately attested to in the literature, or else it is POV and should be deleted. Which of these it is, I will leave to smarter contributors than myself – the top Google “hit” points to one of the target Wikipedia articles and the second one points to this RfD itself! (and subsequent “hits” point to academic articles that are way “above my head.”) Bwrs (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

did some looking around and "technofascism" apparently means "fascism that uses technology", not "fascism in technology", so both of those are wrong

either retarget them to fascism or a more fitting target, or cause them to mysteriously disappear delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I imagined "technofascism" being a portmanteau of technocracy and fascism (with the former referring to governance by experts, not technology itself) and that it would refer to a blend of both. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

probably true Bwrs (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

GWGFJ

• GWGFJ → George Washington Gale Ferris Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no evidence of abbreviation Okmrman (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Awooo

• Awooo → Howling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It just feels questionable, especially considering that you could put any amount of trailing Os and it would still be "valid". Okmrman (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

3 is a good number, honestly

"awo" is more of an acronym than anything, "awoo" is momiji inubashiri's famous totally canon catchphrase (she does not officially have a catchphrase, and that catchphrase is not "awoo"), and "awoooo" would be a little too much

so i'd say keep cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Wiktionary redirect to wikt:awoo. The meme is not defined at the current target with any number of trailing 'o's. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  on that topic, shouldn't "awoo" be dabified? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Cogsan: That seems like a solution to the entire matter. Disambiguate Awoo and point the nominated title there. BD2412 T 19:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, this is literally an onomatopoeia for howling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  To someone familiar with the meme it is. Someone just finding the word in an article for the first time (especially someone whose first language isn't English) would find it surprising to have it link to another page that doesn't explain what it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  ...Being unfamiliar with a meme doesn't make it *not* an onomatopoea?? An onomatopoea is a transliteration of a non-language sound into a language, like "bark", "meow", "bang", or "splash". Just... say "awoo" out loud, and then listen to these dogs howling, and compare.

  Also, for the record, I'm not familiar enough with touhou for my first thought when I see "awoo" to be Momiji Inubashiri as per cogsan; I'm instead part of the furry fandom, where this is just... attached to any old dog/wolf, as per the Wiktionary article 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

7.92

• 7.92 → 8 mm caliber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

searching it up on google doesn't result in 8 mm but it does show another bullet type Okmrman (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Dabify, there are quite a fair number of ammunition types and/or firearms that we have articles on, that could be targeted to. Of note are the following:
7.92x57mm Mauser
7.92×33mm Kurz
7.92×94mm Patronen
7.92×107mm DS
7.92×36mm EPK
7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek
7.92mm Bergmann MG15Na 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

oh yeah i also found out related redirect 7.92 mm. Might as well put this out there as well for you to decide on it. Okmrman (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Rather than create a disambiguation page of what are probably WP:Partial title matches, improve the current target article – the appropriate section of which is already tagged {{Missing information}} – and/or the linked List of rifle cartridges. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably gonna go with Dabify per Luna and redirect 7.92 mm to that disambig Okmrman (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Changing to Retarget per Travix Okmrman (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to 7 mm caliber, which is for the 7.00 to 7.99 millimetres (0.2756 to 0.3146 in) caliber range. Anything at 7.92 mm should be listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Might as well bundle 7.92 mm and 7.92mm along with this Okmrman (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Deplorable

• Deplorable → Basket of deplorables  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Crosswiki to wiktionary. I don't foresee an article being created with more than the definition. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikt:deplorable as per nom and Fieari. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 4 § Deplorable – retarget

• Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The F-Bomb (movie)

• The F-Bomb (movie) → Fuck (disambiguation)#Film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Fuck (2005 film) to be consistent with the The F-Bomb (film) redirect suggestion as per its RfD discussion. Jay 💬 05:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, WP:NOTCENSORED. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

F-Bomb (documentary)

• F-Bomb (documentary) → Fuck (2005 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep to be consistent with the The F-Bomb (documentary) redirect, which the nom (correctly) fixed last week. Jay 💬 04:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, WP:NOTCENSORED StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

F-Bomb (film)

• F-Bomb (film) → Fuck (disambiguation)#Film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Fuck (2005 film) to be consistent with the The F-Bomb (film) redirect suggestion as per its RfD discussion. Jay 💬 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, WP:NOTCENSORED StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The F-Bomb (film)

• The F-Bomb (film) → Fuck (disambiguation)#Film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Fuck (2005 film) to be consistent with the The F-Bomb (documentary) redirect. And the lead does say it's a documentary film. Jay 💬 04:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, WP:NOTCENSORED StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

F-Bomb (movie)

• F-Bomb (movie) → Fuck (2005 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep to be consistent with the The F-Bomb (movie) redirect suggestion as per its RfD discussion. Jay 💬 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, WP:NOTCENSORED StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The American Dodgeball Association of America

• The American Dodgeball Association of America → Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American Dodgeball Association of America → Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Also bundle American Dodgeball Association of America to this. The target mentions ADAA though, and this was clarified in the pre-BLAR content. It shouldn't be hard to expand the acronym. Jay 💬 04:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add related redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

DELETE per nom. Okmrman (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman Bessarabia

• Ottoman Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inaccurate redirect. The Ottoman Empire annexed both Budjak (south of Bessarabia) and northern parts centered around Khotyn [6] [7]. No appropriate alternative target, lack of incoming links show the redirect is not useful. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find those links (to a user-generated map in a Wikipedia article and a bibliographic citation) very helpful. Are you saying that, because the Ottoman Empire annexed more than one place, they didn't give the name Bessarabia to one place (and some other name to the other place)?

What I found in looking into this is that the area the Ottomans called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1600) is not the same as the area the Russians called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1820). The Ottomans used that name (e.g., in 1600) for the part of the world that is described by our article on Budjak, and which that article calls historic Bessarabia. The Russians used that name (e.g., in 1820) for a much larger area. Budjak therefore appears to be the correct target for the Ottoman use of the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(pokémon character)

• Aron (Pokemon character) → List of generation III Pokémon#Aron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aron (Pokémon character) → List of generation III Pokémon#Aron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Golem (Pokemon character) → List of generation I Pokémon#Golem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Golem (Pokémon character) → List of generation I Pokémon#Golem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

closed before with no consensus

aron and golem are species of pokémon, not individual characters cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Absolutely nothing wrong with these redirects, they're a predictable disambiguation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  the point made in the previous rfd was that this was akin to "wookiee (character)" or "cow (character)" being used to refer to entire species, as opposed to a single, identifiable wookiee or cow. as far as "notable" members of those species go... i guess a golem is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series? maybe there's a reason no one remembers team rumblerock :( cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Golem because it is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series. A page discussion Golem as a character would be the only appropriate target, yet Pokémon Mystery Dungeon has no mention of this. Delete Aron too per nom. Nickps (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  yes, that was part of what i could retroactively call a joke. that golem is so minor i'm pretty sure he only gets one non-missable line in the entire main plot of the rescue team games. it would take a miracle for that to afford even a passing mention anywhere

  and aron doesn't even get that, so cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, nom's argument still applies, so my vote stays the same. I'll strike that part though since it's just me not getting the joke. Nickps (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete (Pokemon Character). As I stated at the tail end of that discussion (and should've mentioned FAR sooner): Aron and Golem are species of Pokemon, not the proper names of individual characters-- it'd be akin to Wookiee (Star Wars character). While I will acknowledge that there are instances of individual Pokemon being referred to by the name of their species as if it were a proper name-- with perhaps the most notable example being Ash's Pikachu-- at no point are there notable discrete characters with these names that aren't at the level of fancruft. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete these. There is no Pokemon character called "Aron". There is no Pokemon character called "Golem". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup

• 2021 Chinese FA Super Cup → Chinese FA Super Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.

Law of fives

• Law of fives → Discordianism#Law of Fives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Law of Fives → Discordianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Law of Fives → Discordianism#Law of Fives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [8]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.

  There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.

  Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e

  In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Tantras

• Tantras → Tantras (Hinduism)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It makes no sense for the links tantra and tantras go to different articles. Retarget to tantra. JIP | Talk 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Retarget as per nom. Given the proposed target already has a hatnote pointing to the current target, I don't see any sort of problem with this change. (Don't forget to mark as R from plural.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oop, also, forgot to add: Apparently, this was an R from page move. Still, feels like it makes more sense to point to the singular form. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep since it does not seem to make sense to refer to the subject at Tantra in a plural form. (However, if a disambiguation page were to be created for "Tantra/Tantras", this redirect could be retargeted there.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget to Tantra. Never mind, seems the English language defines the word "tantra", as well as the subject at Tantra, as a noun, so a plural is plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Tantra per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambig for Tantras (Hinduism) and Tantras (Buddhism). Tantras in plural refers to Tantra texts, not the Tantra system.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, are you saying the page should be changed into a dab? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Countering the nomination, it does make sense for the two titles to point to different articles. For any confusion, hatnotes are already in place. Jay 💬 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why does it make sense? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  One is a singular and the other is a plural. Why does it not make sense? Jay 💬 07:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Convert to disambiguation as per @Redtigerxyz (if I understood them correctly). Tantra is about tantric traditions. Tantras (Buddhism) is about Buddhist tantric texts. Tantras (Hinduism) is about Hindu tantric texts. Therefore, Tantras should be a dab between Tantras (Buddhism) and Tantras (Hinduism), probably also with a note about Tantra as well. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Dabify - Per above, their arguments are convincing that the plural matters and a search for Tantra or Tantras means something different. Fieari (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further consideration of disambiguation proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tantra but yes, a DAB would cover every one of the topics and is maybe the most direct way to seek the plausible topic that many readers would be searching for. It should be a well-done DAB page in order to put the most sought after topics high on the list and maybe make a few primary at the top. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• This shouldn't've been relisted a fourth time, but retarget to Tantra (disambiguation), where the two Tantras are mentioned. No need for a separate dab. Queen of ♡ | speak 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dependence liability

• Dependence liability → Substance dependence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: As the creator of this redirect, I would like to mention that this term features in most articles using the | dependency_liability parameter in Infobox drug such as Caffeine, Cocaine or MDMA, where it pipes to the same article as the redirect's destination. That being said, it could be expanded into an article since there's probably enough information on the subject, or at the very least something like List of psychoactive substances by dependence liability could be created to further establish the term. — Mugtheboss (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Another thing, I had a look through WP:R#DELETE to refresh my memory, and there isn’t a criterion for redirects not having adequate usage. I also thought that maybe my redirect could be seen to fall under 8 or 10, but the term "dependence liability" is mentioned in this section of the target page, and that section does delve into the topic, albeit pretty shallowly, so my view is that neither apply. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mugtheboss: But it's not at all defined there, only peripherally mentioned in a single instance. Hildeoc (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: The term "dependence liability" should be self-explanatory in the context of that article, I.E. how liable a substance is to cause dependence. As I mentioned, the term is present in practically every article using Template:Infobox drug with the | dependency_liability parameter being active, making it widespread across the wiki. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mugtheboss: I'm sorry but, in fact, that is not how WP:R#PLA works imho. Hildeoc (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: If you believe that it fails RPLA, then the best option would be to redirect it to the section of the target page I linked above, which would make it adhere to this part of the guideline: "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" … are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes." If you agree, I'd happily do it myself. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like a generic term that may as well apply to Marriage penalty, Cohabitation#Financial effects, Shared earning/shared parenting marriage, Income splitting, etc. Jay 💬 07:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you google the term, only medical results show up, including multiple studies with the term in the name, such as "Use of drugs with dependence liability", "Dependence liability of the benzodiazepines", "Dependence-Producing Liability of LSD and Similar Psychotomimetics", etc… etc…

  It's clear that this term is established in medicine, not marriage law. — Mugtheboss (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Ukraine missile strike

• 2024 Ukraine missile strike → 22 March 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obviously problematic redirect. Inclusionists let's use common sense. Just delete the redirect. We don't have disambiguation pages like 2022 Ukraine missile strike or 2023 Ukraine missile strike. There is few people who would look up something as general as this. Let's simply delete the redirect, it is of not much use. Super Ψ Dro 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete My first reaction was to keep, as it seemed like this was "2024 strike" (singular) to "2024 strikes" (plural). Then I noticed the "22 March" part of the target. Delete as per nom, definitely don't keep on current target. (A potential target if kept MIGHT be to Russo-Ukrainian War, which takes a more wide-shot, general look at the concept... but if any missile strikes happen in Ukraine NOT part of the Russo-Ukranian War, the reasoning for that retarget falls apart.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Retarget as per Pppery, although I do recommend adjusting to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#January 2024 given this one doesn't specify March. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#March 2024 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present), March isn't mentioned in this one. Rusalkii (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete This is a nonsensical redirect. Even if we were to target it to some timeline, there are no good options, as any timeline (at least how they are currently structured) necessarily does not include all of 2024, and "2024 Ukraine missile strike" certainly could refer to any time period in 2024, not just one part of the timeline. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) per Rusalkii. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, the article was under this incorrect title for one hour. We don't have articles or lists on missile strikes in Ukraine categorized by year. Jay 💬 14:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)